Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SELECTION

Ordered.
That Mr. David Alton be discharged from the Committee of Selection, and Mr. James Wallace be added to the Committee.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Surplus School Places

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made by Welsh local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in their schools.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The Department estimates that some 87,000 primary places and 32,000 secondary places remain surplus to requirements. I hope that authorities will come forward with proposals to the benefit of improved educational standards.

Mr. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that it is vital, on both educational and financial grounds, to stop wasting money on empty desks and channel the money to more educationally valid

purposes? Does he agree that if education authorities do not reduce expenditure on empty desks they will lay themselves open to challenge by ratepayers, through the district auditor, for wasting public money?

Mr. Roberts: On the last point, I certainly respect my hon. Friend's professional expertise in this business. The cost of the surpluses to which I have referred is about £17 million per annum in Wales. That money could, of course, be applied to better educational purposes.

Mr. Livsey: Is the Minister aware that in many parts of Wales the population is so sparse that spare places have been inevitable for the past 50 years? Is he further aware that Powys has only one child per 45 acres compared with one per two and a half acres in non-urban England? Does he agree that in comparing statistics the Audit Commission must be extremely careful to take account of sparsity factors when dealing with the education system?

Mr. Roberts: Of course I agree that sparsity of population must be taken into account, and I am sure that the Audit Commission does so.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that schools such as Lliswerry comprehensive in my constituency have to rely on school closures and so-called surplus places to obtain replacement desks and chairs because the existing ones are in such a shocking state? Does he agree that this is yet another example of a vital public service being starved of funds, to the long-term detriment of our children?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman should know that spending on education this year is a record high of £980 per pupil. He should also realise that we have recognised that capital expenditure is often necessary to effect rationalisation of schools. That is why we have increased the capital allocation to local authorities by a massive 18 per cent. this year.

North Wales Hospital

Mr. Martyn Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to seek to replace the employment which will be lost in the Denbigh area following the closure of the North Wales hospital.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): If a substantial variation of service is proposed, Clwyd health authority will be required to consult local interests fully. In view of my possible future role, it would be improper for me to comment on the effects of the proposals at this time.

Mr. Jones: In view of that answer, will the right hon. Gentleman consider development area status for the vale of Clwyd, bearing in mind that rural Clwyd is surrounded by areas receiving assistance, including the Welsh Development Agency in Powys and assisted area status for the urban areas to the west?

Mr. Walker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and these matters are, of course, kept under review. There is, however, quite a lot going on in the area. For example, there are five WDA factories ready for occupation. Unemployment has fallen in the past 12 months, and I hope that it will continue to do so. I believe that the substantial improvements to the A55 will also be of considerable importance.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anger in North Wales at the panic hospital closures which are being further considered by Gwynedd health authority even this afternoon as we sit here, and that there will be a loss of some 150 jobs in the programme, many of them within the catchment area of the North Wales hospital? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no such closures take place without reference to a longterm coherent strategy? If the health authority asks for a meeting with him to discuss financial difficulties, will he agree to that?

Mr. Walker: We are in constant touch with all health authorities and are always ready to have meetings with them on those subjects. We have had meetings with that health authority. I understand that it is meeting today to consider proposals drawn up by the general manager. I shall have to consider any proposals that are made subsequently. I know that the hon. Gentleman is particularly interested in Caernarfon cottage hospital. I have been told today that the health authority is not now being advised to close it on a temporary basis. Instead, the future of the hospital is being considered in the longer term. If any proposal is made for the longer-term closure of such a hospital it has to go through the full route of inquiries and eventually is subject to my consideration.

Voluntary Organisations (Grants)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years at constant prices.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of grants paid to voluntary bodies in Wales in 1978–79 and in the latest available financial year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): Welsh Office grants for voluntary bodies

including those made under the urban programme and joint finance arrangements, totalled some £8·44 million for the 1986–87 financial year. The comparable figures for 1978–79, 1984–85 and 1985–86 are about £3·46 million, some £6·43 million and some £6·93 million respectively at constant prices.

Mr. Knox: I welcome the increase in the real value of those grants. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a cost-effective form of expenditure and should be further increased?

Mr. Grist: The expenditure certainly has been increased — it has increased by 143 per cent. since the Government came to power. It is certainly cost-effective. It answers the real human need of those who receive benefit from the voluntary organisations and those who contribute to their work and financing.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the work done by voluntary organisations such as the Urban Ministry is invaluable, that such work cannot be matched by official bodies and that it should be encouraged further as part of the inner cities initiative? By how much has the urban programme increased in grants to voluntary organisations? Will my hon. Friend continue to look sympathetically at all applications for carrying on the work of the Urban Ministry?

Mr. Grist: A large number of bids are in at the moment, which are being considered. All such bids are considered seriously. The urban programme support for the voluntary sector has increased from some £600,000 a year to £2·8 million a year since we came to office.

Mr. Rogers: The Minister says that there has been an increase of 150 per cent. in grants to voluntary bodies and charities. Is it not true that more people in Wales need help from voluntary bodies and charities because the Government are not doing their job?

Mr. Grist: Not at all, because the Government's expenditure on social services, health, education and everything else has been rising faster than inflation and the growth of the economy.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister look particularly at the applications from Welsh Women's Aid, in view of the essential service provided by that voluntary body in reducing the amount of violence against women and ensuring the welfare of children in Wales?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman mentions a movement that I personally have always supported, and indeed, so have the Government. Since 1979–80 we have provided substantial programme support for the operational costs of women's refuges in Wales. In 1987–88 alone we are providing over £150,000 in support for that purpose. The running costs of Welsh Women's Aid are currently grant-aided separately by the Welsh Office. That grant has risen from £8,000 in 1978–79 to £70,000 in 1987–88.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is not an additional factor the development of several new voluntary bodies of this character, which formerly were on a United Kingdom basis and now tend to be on a Welsh basis?

Mr. Grist: Yes. That is occurring to some extent. Under certain programmes, such as the urban programme and some of our other funding, it is necessary for those bodies to have a Welsh basis in order to receive assistance through the Welsh Office.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister consider the effect on the voluntary sector in Wales of forthcoming changes in the community programme regulations which may make it much more difficult for the voluntary sector to maintain the level of activitiy, even with increased levels of direct grant? The community pogramme changes now being proposed will impoverish the voluntary sector by far more than the Government's direct urban aid support has enriched it.

Mr. Grist: I can best answer the hon. Gentleman by asking him to write and let me know precisely what he has in mind. I do not recognise any Government programmes that will damage the voluntary sector.

Water Quality

Mr. Win Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the Welsh water authority to comply in full with directive 76 160 EEC on the water quality standards of designated bathing waters.

Mr. Grist: In 1986 the Welsh water authority embarked upon its 15 year programme of improvements and remedial works to enable listed bathing waters to meet the conditions specified in the EC directive. In 1986, 23 of the 47 listed bathing waters already met the required standard.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the European Commission is deeply dissatisfied with the British Government's failure to operate the directive since 1976? Is he further aware of any discussions that are taking place between the Commission and the Government that will demand that bathing waters in Wales and elsewhere be brought up to standard in less than 10 years? In the case of Wales, where it will cost about £200 million at current prices to bring the bathing waters up to standard, that will not be done over a 15-year period, but could be done in even less than five years if the Commission went to the European Court of Justice.

Mr. Grist: It seems unlikely that we are in any difficulty with the European Commission on that programme.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government's proposals for the privatisation of water will in no way diminish the already far from adequate investment programme to clean up the beaches?

Mr. Grist: They will certainly not have any such effect as my hon. Friend fears. It is proposed that the national rivers authority will be responsible for the quality of coastal waters and will, of course, take over the responsibilities of the Welsh Water Authority in that respect.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he adopts when dealing with applications for opencast mining in Wales by both the public and private sectors.

Mr. Grist: Applications for planning permission which come before my right hon. Friend are considered on their merits having regard to the provisions of the relevant development plans and all other material considerations, including Government policy as published in circulars or elsewhere.
The current guidelines are in Welsh Office circular 13/84. They are under review.

Mr. Coleman: No doubt the Secretary of State used those criteria in recent announcements about opencast mining. He now has in his possession a report from his inspector concerning Ynys Ffarch Fawr farm. in the Dulais valley. May we expect that the same criteria will be applied to that, particularly as the amount of coal that is to be extracted is insignificant—20,000 tonnes—and the amount of employment is almost non-existent — six people? Will the Minister give an assurance that the same kind of consideration will be given to this application as to those announced this week?

Mr. Grist: Certainly. The application of the criteria will be the same in every case.

Mr. Ray Powell: I thank the Minister for his decision about the Llanilid West site in Pencoed. This area has been devastated by opencast mining for some years. I am glad to put on record my thanks for the decision not to proceed with further development in the opencast mining area of Brynna, Llanharan and Llanilid in Pencoed.

Mr. Grist: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. It is an area that I know well, having lived close to it in years past.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister accept my thanks, too, for the decision announced on Friday on the Brynhenllys site on the upper Swansea valley, where development would have been intolerable because it went into the Brecon Beacons and was also alongside a close-knit community? Will he also condemn wild statements that were made on Friday by the management of the opencast executive, which stated that the decision would have a devastating effect on deep mining, when it is well known that the criteria for deep mining are applied on a pit-by-pit basis?

Mr. Grist: The spokesman's response was possibly one of grave disappointment, of the same intensity as the hon. Gentleman's thanks, which are well received on the Government side.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend agree that, outside times of emergency, opencast coal mining should be restricted as far as possible to areas of dereliction and should not be allowed where it would destroy grade 1, 2 or 3A agricultural land or distinctive historic landscapes that can never be restored, only rehabilitated?

Mr. Grist: Those considerations are certainly taken into account now and will be in the future.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that he is still failing to inform the House about what he is doing to maintain the high standards of health, safety and environmental protection in the working of small sites? What is being done about the long-standing grievance of opencast workers that their terms of employment should compare with the terms of people employed in deep mining?

Mr. Grist: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point that there is employment in opencast mining and that many hundreds, indeed, thousands of jobs depend on it. That is one of the other aspects that must be taken into consideration when these matters are brought forward.

Gwynedd (Unemployment)

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on progress in reducing unemploymentt in Gwynedd.

Mr. Peter Walker: Since January 1986 the unemployment rate in Gwynedd has fallen by 4·4 percentage points, the largest such fall for any county in Wales. While the present rate remains too high, this fall confirms that the Government's policies are contributing to a real and worthwhile improvement in the economy of the area.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that unemployment levels over large parts of Gwynedd, which generally do not have development area status, are higher than in areas such as Clwyd, which have it? Does he also accept that areas such as Arfon, in the Audit Commission's Shaw classification of social deprivation, categorise themselves with areas such as Merthyr Tydfil? Should there not be a review of regional policy within Wales to ensure that more finance is injected to overcome the unemployment problems in Gwynedd?

Mr. Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint, hut, as I am sure he knows, while one must obviously constantly review these matters, if one is changing the map at frequent intervals it makes for an impossible regional policy. There are other ways and methods by which we can give help to an area. Help can be given by, for example, the activities of the Welsh Development Agency. I am glad to say that at the moment there are six WDA units available for letting and that 32 further units are under construction or planned.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to attract employment to Gwynedd and, indeed, to other parts of Wales is by inward investment and that on the face of it it is better to have inward investment from EC countries, where we are likely to get a share of the research and development and do not run the risk of subsidiaries being shut down when there is a recession, than from Japan or the United States.

Mr. Walker: I have no desire to distinguish between one form of inward investment and another. I am in favour of them all on the maximum that they can be encouraged. My hon. Friend mentioned Japan. It is operating a considerable investment programme into Europe and I am anxious to see that the Principality gets more than its share of that inward investment programme. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is now a great deal of European interest in United Kingdom markets, and I am anxious to see European companies attracted to Wales.

Mr. Foot: In the case of Gwynedd and other hard hit areas in Wales, is it right that the Government are now undertaking a fresh review of regional policy? Will the Minister give an undertaking to consult Welsh hon. Members before he introduces such a review, because every previous change in regional policy introduced by this Government has hit the parts of Wales that were already hardest hit? Will he consider in any such review the reintroduction of the special development area status which some of the hardest hit areas had and which was taken away by his predecessor?

Mr. Walker: In the past 16 months unemployment in Wales has fallen by more than in another part of the United Kingdom. I welcome that. I have considerable

flexibility in the regional programme. The Principality requires maximum flexibility, and any regional programme to which I agree will have flexibility and, I hope, an increasing volume of expenditure in the future.

Public Fund Management

Mrs. Clywd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now respond to the Public Accounts Committee's recent report criticising the management of public funds in relation to several Welsh institutions.

Mr. Peter Walker: The Government will respond to the Committee of Public Accounts' report in the usual way. A Treasury minute will be published on 28 October.

Mrs. Clywd: Is the Secretary of State aware that the accounts of the National museum of Wales were not available for scrutiny by the Court of Governors on Thursday because they still have not been passed by the Welsh Office? Will he tell us when those accounts will be available? Does he agree with the Public Accounts Committee that the Welsh Office has been totally irresponsible and complacent in failing to oversee a considerable amount of public money, when the people of Wales are crying out for money to be spent on education, housing, health and employment?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her pre-briefing of her supplementary, which appeared in the Western Mail this morning. I am as anxious as she is to ensure the maximum efficiency in all public expenditure, be it the National museum of Wales, the health authorities or the local authorities. We decided that independent consultants should be appointed to carry out the financial management and policy review on the national museum. They were appointed in September, proceeded with all due speed, and are expected to report by the end of the year.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the National museum of Wales has put forward discussion proposals for streamlining its court and its council? Has he noticed that effectively the first part of its proposal would be to remove from its council the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)?

Mr. Walker: I have not made any such observation.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister ensure that the consultants report not just on the conduct of the national museum authority but on the conduct of the Welsh Office? Does he recognise that salaries make up the major element of the costs of the museum, and is he aware that those Civil Service salaries are set not by the museum authority but by the Government? Will he bear in mind that virtually the whole of the shortfall that has been commented upon publicly has arisen from the failure of the Government and in particular his predecessor to make provision from public funds for the salary increases that the Government have awarded?

Mr. Walker: I do not agree with that conclusion. I believe, as I think the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) believes, that there is scope for better general and financial management of the museum. The portion of blame with any Government Department as the monitoring Department is something of a delicate nature. If one interferes too much with the detail one is accused of running the national musuem, which the Welsh Office has no desire to do. On the other hand, if one accepts


statements as to predictions that then do not take place, one is blamed when they do not take place. It is quite a delicate relationship. All I can say is that in my meetings with the National museum there is a determination to implement the best and most successful financial and general managerial systems, and I hope that that will result.

Student Grants

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the levels of grants to students in higher and further education.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In the last 12 months my right hon. Friend has received 29 representations on matters relating to grants for students in higher and further education.

Mr. Thomas: Does the Minister of State not accept that now is the time for him, as the Minister responsible for most of further and higher education in Wales, to look at the whole pattern of student support and also at the funding of places? Is it not time that we were able to plan the whole of post-16 education in Wales as one unit?

Mr. Roberts: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are carrying out a review of student grants and that there will be a Green Paper in due course. With regard to looking at the whole of the area, the Welsh advisory body is extremely helpful and is collaborating with the university sector.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that most people who go on to university derive enormous financial benefits as a result of their study, and that some system of grants and loans might be fairer to the rest of the community?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that it would be wise for me to anticipate the contents of the Green Paper.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Minister look carefully at the effect on county education budgets of the financial pressures from central Government in respect of discretionary postgraduate grants? In some cases, counties cannot give grants for postgraduate legal education, thus restricting access to the barrister profession to those whose parents have the necessary money.

Mr. Roberts: I had not noticed a shortage of barristers. We have increased the rate support grant, from which such discretionary grants are made, by 15 per cent. per pupil up to last year.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister realise that his first answer, in which he prevaricated on the issue of possible student loans, will cause great disquiet within education circles? Will he bear in mind that students have already had a 21 per cent. cut in their spending power under this Administration? The minimum grant has been abolished, the grant in respect of their costs of travelling to college has been eroded and there has been the presumption of the 207 per cent. increase in the utterly hypothetical parental contribution. Does the Minister realise that there will be grave concern, in the context of a review that is about to take place and in view of his words, because the Government are seen as being not only disinterested in student affairs but as being positively and actively vindictive in their opposition and antipathy towards students?

Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware that, between 1985 and 1990, we plan to increase student numbers by 5 per cent. I do not understand how he can say what he did. I must point out to him that this year the student grant increased in line with inflation. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that our grants compare favourably with those available in most other countries. It is certainly not for me to anticipate the contents of the Green Paper.

Sir Raymond Gower: Would it not be a good idea to make second postgraduate degrees, after a primary degree has been obtained, the subject of student loans? That was the recommendation some years ago from an education sub-committee of which I was a member. Will my hon. Friend consider it?

Mr. Roberts: There is much to be said for student loans of some sort, and I am sure that the matter will be dealt with in the Green Paper.

School Class Sizes

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to provide resources for local education authorities to limit class sizes to a maximum of 25.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: No, Sir. Class sizes are a matter for determination by local education authorities in response to local circumstances.

Dr. Marek: Is the Minister aware that such disingenuous answers fool no one, least of all the British public? Half the money provided by local education authorities comes from the Government and the other half is strictly controlled by the Government in the form of rate support grant. Instead of talking about surplus places, why does the Minister not take a leaf out of the book of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who has promised that by next April no one in need of an urgent operation will have to wait for more than a month, and no one in need of a non-urgent operation will have to wait for more than a year? Why can he not produce a simple, straightforward, easily understood criterion for the level and quality of class sizes in Wales? If 25 is too small, will he accept 30?

Mr. Roberts: The reason why I will not be led along that path is that life is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman makes it out to be. He is asking us to impose a policy on local education authorities — [Interruption.] I hear the cries of Opposition Members. They reinforce what I have said, that it is not for us to impose the sort of policy that the hon. Gentleman would wish us to impose on local authorities. There may be perfectly acceptable educational reasons for the wide variations in class sizes within a local education authority. The hon. Gentleman will find his question thoroughly discussed in the recent HMI report on the effects of local authority expenditure on education policy.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister extend his reluctance to place constraints and impose policies on local authorities with regard to class size to other aspects of education and non-educational activities such as housing? Is he aware that the answer that he gave earlier expressing a reluctance to impose policies will cause amazement among local authorities, which experience the imposition of policies every day of the week?

Mr. Roberts: This question is about education. The fact is — and we should not forget this — that we have the best pupil-teacher ratio in Wales at the present time, at 17·5 pupils per teacher. We should be proud of that, and that should not be the cause of over-large classes.

Mold Bypass

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position in regard to the proposed Mold bypass.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The result of the traffic surveys undertaken earlier this year have been analysed and further investigations undertaken. These have revealed possible solutions to the traffic problems at Mold in addition to those considered at public consultation early this year. I propose to consult local interests about these alternatives before announcing a preferred route.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend, confirm that the Welsh Office will be responding to the following local needs: the need for a line of route acceptable to the residents of Mynydd Isa; the need for an effective solution where the bypass intersects with the A541 so that we do not have traffic congestion along the Chester road and up Wylfa hill; the need for a slip road from the bypass into the Mold business park and most important of all, the need for an early start on the construction of the bypass so that Mold is not disadvantaged in job creation terms in relation to Wrexham and Alyn and Deeside, where road improvements have been proceeding more speedily?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that all the points made by my hon. Friend will be taken into account before we arrive at a decision. Certainly the April survey proved that there was a need for a bypass and a roundabout at the junction with the A541. We intend, subject to satisfactory procedures and the availability of money, to make a start on the bypass within the time band — that is, before December 1990.

Inward Investment

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the progress to date of inward investment in Wales; and what are the latest figures of inquiries by overseas companies.

Mr. Peter Walker: Since WINvest was established in April 1983 to attract inward investment to Wales, a total of 207 projects have been secured from overseas involving over 24,000 jobs and over £760 million of capital investment. WlNvest is dealing with many inquiries at the present time.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that under successive Governments and particularly under Conservative Governments since 1979, this has been the greatest success story in the whole of the Welsh economy? Does my right hon. Friend expect that success to continue?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that in recent months we have had visitors from overseas companies averaging three every four working days. My hon. Friend is probably aware that in a few weeks' time I will be going to Japan where I will meet representatives of many companies interested in investing in Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister said earlier with regard to inward investment that he had considerable

flexibility. Does not that claimed flexibility make the recent loss of 300 jobs in the Cotton Mill project look hamfisted, maladroit or positively incompetent on the Welsh Office's part? Will he bear in mind that from the outset the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office knew very well that that project was interested in a site either in Swansea or one in Dundee, but in no other site? The project lost the site to Scotland. Will he bear in mind that there is considerable bitterness in Swansea and Wales that those jobs were lost to Dundee in response to the very development area grants that the Government took from Swansea when they carried out the last review of regional policy?

Mr. Walker: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman spoke as he did. I agree that he spoke in the same tone as that of the leader of the Swansea council. This morning I met representatives of Tootal, who confirmed to me that they have made no decision whatsoever about the siting of the plant. Therefore, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman check his facts for once. I hope that he will also carefully consider the fact that the so-called incompetent Welsh Office, to which he constantly refers, has made an offer in the Swansea area amounting to between £7·5 million and £9 million. The Chinese firm and its British partners are willing to put in only £4·6 million. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should more carefully consider how wise it is to spend Government money to the benefit of Swansea.

Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin

Mr. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by what percentage his Department has increased its annual grant to Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin since 1979.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Since 1979–80 support for Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin has increased by 304 per cent., an increase in real terms of 132 per cent.

Mr. Butler: I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Will he join me in paying tribute to the excellence of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin, which does wonderful work in promoting the cause of the Welsh language? Does it not underline the Government's commitment to the future of the Welsh language?

Mr. Roberts: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the work of Mudiad Ysgolion Meithrin. Since 1979, we have enabled it to increase its groups from 280 to 720. Its full-time staff numbers have increased from seven to 11. It is doing a first-class job. It is typical of many voluntary organisations which, with Government support, are working for the Welsh language.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Official Visits

Mr. Favell: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his last official visit to the Duchy.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): My last official Duchy duties outside London took place on 24 July, when I received her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on the Duchy estate at Crewe. Also, that evening, I hosted a reception given for 250 magistrates at the start of their summer conference at Lancaster university.

Mr. Favell: My right hon. and learned Friend will always be welcome in the north-west. His honest and forthright manner is well appreciated. When he makes his next visit, will he please travel by air from London to Manchester? As he is ushered to his seat by a young stewardess in British Airways blue or British Caledonian tartan, will he contemplate what would be the effects on that excellent service if all competition were removed? When he gets to Manchester, now British Airways' second most important base, will he consider how bad the effects would be if Lord King, through British Caledonian, got his hands on Gatwick, unless all Manchester's licensing restraints were swept away and true competition were allowed to permit that excellent airport to develop its full potential?

Mr. Clarke: I am glad to say that I visit Manchester fairly regularly and try to keep in touch with, among other things, the working of the inner city task force in Moss-side. I usually go by train; I rarely fly — I apologise for that. The Government have given considerable support to Manchester airport in recent years and will continue to do so. However, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot possibly comment on the proposed merger between BA and BCal until we have the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in our hands.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people are currently employed by the Duchy.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Sixty one, Sir.

Mr. Thurnham: When my right hon. and learned Friend next visits the Duchy to see employment there, perhaps he will stop en route, whether he travels by rail or air, and see what is happening in Bolton. Will he see for himself the large investment schemes which are creating many thousands of jobs and which are justifying Bolton's claim to be the most enterprising town in Britain?

Mr. Clarke: It must be over a year since my hon. Friend last persuaded me to visit Bolton to see one of the schemes which he was promoting and which was encouraging employment for long-term unemployed people in the town. I welcome the opportunity of going there again as soon as I can and seeing the continued work of Bolton Business Venture, the enterprise agency, and that of my hon. Friend. I am delighted that all the efforts are paying off. I am told that unemployment in the Bury and Bolton travel-to-work area is 2·4 per cent. down on the level 12 months ago, althought we all appreciate that it has to go much further.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Rating Reform

Mr. Allen: asked the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the commissioners have made in relation to the effects on the staff of the church for which they are responsible of the proposed poll tax.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners have worked closely with the churches main committee, which has made representations to Her Majesty's Government on behalf of all the major

denominations. Those representations have emphasised the loss of charitable relief on domestic rates and the serious financial implications of the proposed community charge for the churches.

Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Church Commissioners to congratulate the Government on doing what many thought was impossible — uniting Jew, Hindu, Muslim and Christian under one banner against the threat of this unjust poll tax on their churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and all places of worship? Will he also make representations to ensure that the Bible, the Koran, and other religious works will not be hit by the VAT which the Government will allow to be imposed on all written documents?

Mr. Alison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary question before he heard my reply. If he had waited he would have learnt that the churches main committee is consulting the Government to see whether some relief can be made available to the churches. The hon. Gentleman's supplementary, which he composed in advance of my reply, is therefore redundant.

Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the staff and others involved in the churches have a vote in local authority matters and enjoy the services provided by local authorities in a measure equal to other citizens? Does he therefore agree that it is only equitable and just that all people in a local authority area should be able to vote and should pay their share?

Mr. Alison: That is a very fair comment. Clergy do not pay domestic rates and they will not pay the community charge. The community charge will be paid on their behalf by the churches, and that is one of the reasons why we are consulting the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

National Audit Office (Staff)

Mr. Allen: asked the right hon. Member for Ashton under Lyme, answering on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission, if he will give details of the occasions since 1984 when the Public Accounts Commission has modified, under section 4(2) of the National Audit Act 1983, the estimate prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General so as to provide for an increase in the number of staff employed in the National Audit Office.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: (on behalf of the Public Accounts Commission): I have been asked to reply on this occasion.
The Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General have consistently agreed on the desirability of planned expansion of staff numbers in the NAO. In consequence, there was no need for the commission to modify any of the estimates laid before it under the National Audit Act by the C and AG.

Mr. Allen: Will my right hon. Friend list those PAC reports for which the Government still have not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman refer briefly to his notes rather than reading from them?

Mr. Allen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure to put the reports before the House is a denial of parliamentary scrutiny? Does my right hon Friend


concede that if additional staff were available for the National Audit Office the House could scrutinise the expenditure of the nationalised industries, M 15 and M16, as well as the special employment schemes, which do not currently come within the PAC remit?

Mr. Sheldon: It is, of course, a fact that the National Audit Office has difficulty in recruiting and keeping its staff, mainly because of the salary levels offered in the City, among other places. We have the further problem that nationalised industries lie outside our remit, as defined by the National Audit Act. What we can do is to ask the sponsoring Departments to come before us so that we can question them. However, we do not have direct entry into the nationalised industries? Some people think that that is a pity, but legislation is required to enable the PAC and the National Audit Office to have that entry.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Sir Gordon Downey on his retirement? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling abroad that Sir Gordon's successor should come from outside the Civil Service and from the private sector? If the problem of attracting anyone from the private sector is pay, will my right hon. Friend put it to the Prime Minister that the salary scale for the Comptroller and Auditor General should be substantially increased so that we can attract people of the calibre necessary to ensure that the Department is run effectively?

Mr. Sheldon: I am happy to pay tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Gordon Downey, who has been outstanding and a most effective Officer of the House of Commons. He set up the National Audit Office in a way which has commended itself to the whole of the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Accounts Commission. In relation to his replacement, there are problems about salary levels which are different in the public service from those which apply outside. That has caused some problems of which my hon. Friend will be aware. These are matters for further negotiation.

Mr. McAllion: My right hon. Friend seemed to suggest that there would be no independent audit for important nationalised industries such as the British Steel Corporation. That being so, how can we have faith in the assessment of performance of plants within the corporation, such as Ravenscraig, other than by believing what we are told by Ministers or BSC management? As it is widely held in Scotland that both BSC management and Ministers are intent on the closure of Ravenscraig, how can we have faith in any assessment that Ravenscraig is losing money compared with any other BSC plant?

Mr. Sheldon: Accountability lies with the Minister of the sponsoring Department coming to the House of Commons. As I said earlier, the Comptroller and Auditor General does not have direct rights to investigate the books and accounts of those nationalised industries. It would require further legislation to do that. Of course, that could be done by a private Member's Bill, if one were considered, but how far it would proceed in the House would be something for the Leader of the House and others to take into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Cancer Screening

Mr. Rooker: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will arrange to provide cancer screening facilities for all those who work in the Palace of Westminster.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I see no reason to go against the unanimous advice of the Services Committee in 1986, when it recommended that on-site cancer screening facilities should not for the time being be provided for women working at the Palace. Female staff are encouraged to undergo regular screening, using the facilities that exist in the community.

Mr. Rooker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but I do not accept it. Following the report published in February last year, it was discovered that the local screening facilities would not accept block bookings, and given the unsocial hours involved, the three-month waiting list is not good enough, as women cannot then use the recess. Given that Reckitt and Coleman, ICI, Plessey, Rowntree, British Bakeries and Birds Eye all provide on-site cancer screening facilities, why cannot we, as collective employers of all the female staff who work in the Palace, seek to open up the issue once again? Frankly, having read the report, as did many of my hon. Friends, in my view the matter was not gone into in sufficient detail, given the inquiries that were made afterwards.

Mr. Wakeham: It is always possible to look at these things again. As the hon. Gentleman may know, an on-site screening programme will be provided in mid-November for the female staff of another place. Those results will be studied with interest. We shall also await a full evaluation of an experimental screening programme for women civil servants in Cardiff funded by the Council of Civil Service Unions.

Mrs. Clwyd: Given that the facilities are not available in the community, although the Lord Privy Seal seems to think that they are, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should look at the latest statistics, which show that the Government's programme will not be on stream by March 1988. What are women supposed to do in the meantime—die?

Mr. Wakeham: I am advised that all health authorities, including Riverside, which covers the Westminster area, are expected to have implemented computerised call and recall systems for cervical screening by next spring.

Members (Accommodation)

Mr. Wray: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has recently visited the working accommodation of hon. Members in the Cloisters.

Mr. Wakeham: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wray: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that working conditions in the House are deplorable? In our room in the Cloisters we must stand on top of the writing desk to open a window, we have 5½ sq yd of working floor space, and our research assistants and secretaries must run like greyhounds from St. Stephen's to carry papers to and fro. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that the room of the former hon. Member for Billericay is still lying


empty, while my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is wandering about like Moses? Because of the build-up in frustration among hon. Members, we are thinking about taking over where Guy Fawkes left off.

Mr. Wakeham: It is almost a prerequisite for holding my present job to have had a desk for a time in the Cloisters, as I did some years ago. I accept that accommodation is not fully adequate, but the provision of adequate accommodation for hon. Members and their secretaries is not a new problem. Many hon. Members will, I am sure, agree that the facilities have been greatly improved in the last 15 to 20 years. For instance, we now have 417 desks for secretaries, compared to 199 in 1971; we have 262 single rooms for Members, compared to 164 in 1971; and we have 705 Members' writing desks, compared to 525 in 1971. As the hon. Gentleman will know, work is in hand to improve the facilities further.

Sir Dudley Smith: Echoing what has just been said, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that some of us are extremely pleased with the progress that has been made by him, and by his predecessors on both sides of the House who have been Leaders of the House, in providing accommodation, given the limitations of the building and its immediate area? Does he accept, however, that one difficulty ought to be attended to in due course; namely, that secretaries of Members in different parties share rooms? In the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House, should they not be segregated wherever possible?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly take note of my hon. Friend's last point. I am grateful to him, as will be those members of the staff of the House who are working very hard to try to improve the position in what are, admittedly, difficult circumstances.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Leader of the House not agree that, even if we accept that the new Secretary of State for Social Services needs a vast horde of civil servants to look after him in the Richmond terrace development, the space not taken up by the Department of Health and Social Security could provide single rooms for at least 36 Members of Parliament immediately, as well as space for their secretarial staff? Does he not agree that it would be better to use that surplus space for them than to use it for a few assorted staff from the Cabinet Office, the Welsh Office and the Inland Revenue, as is at present intended?

Mr. Wakeham: It was never intended that Richmond terrace should be available for Members and staff. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that a major scheme for lleW parliamentary accommodation is already in progress on the site adjoining the Palace.

Mr. Harry Greenway: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the office accommodation of hon. Members and of hon. Member's secretaries.

Mr. Wakeham: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that my predecessor gave him on 9 February 1987. The situation has not changed significantly since then, but I hope that it will be eased with the completion of Cannon row, which is expected in 1988.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Like everyone else, I welcome improvements in conditions for hon. Member's secretaries. However, I would ask for much greater improvements. Secretaries often have to work with an

impossible shortage of space, and against cacophonic noise from the typewriters of other secretaries in the office. How can they answer telephones and hold proper conversations in such conditions? Could offices be soundproofed, and could county hall be brought into the operation?

Mr. Wakeham: Responsibility for the disposal of county hall falls to the London residuary body, not to the Government. However, I am sure that the Services Committee will take into account all the available buildings in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminister when considering ways of improving accommodation facilities. I shall certainly discuss with the Services Committee the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Scottish Law Officers

Mr. Wallace: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will review the arrangements for the accountability to the House of the Scottish Law Officers.

Mr. Wakeham: No, Sir. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfries (Sir H. Monro) on 26 June 1987.

Mr. Wallace: The Lord Privy Seal will be well aware of the admittedly not unprecedented, but nevertheless unsatisfactory, position in which neither of the Scottish Law Officers is personally accountable in the House. Does he not accept that it is most regrettable that that unsatisfactory position has been compounded by the fact that we no longer have a specified period, such as the last 10 minutes of Scottish Question Time, in which the Ministers designated to answer questions on behalf of the Law Officers can be called to account? At present, all questions to the Law Officers go into the ballot, and it may be months before there is an opportunity to air some very sensitive and important issues in the House.

Mr. Wakeham: The same practice has been adopted as on previous occasions when there were no Scottish Law Officers in the House. Questions to the Lord Advocate have an equal chance, with others, of receiving an oral answer, and the time allocated to Scottish Questions is unchanged. I believe that to be generally acceptable to the House, although I recognise that the hon. Gentleman does not accept that to be so.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

VAT

Mr. Chapman: asked the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the cost to the Church Commissioners in respect of the value added tax charged on the repairs of their buildings in the last year; and what effect this has had on their programme for the repair of such buildings.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners paid over £½m VAT on building repairs in 1986. This adds to the overall cost of repairs and takes up funds which might otherwise be used for the support of the clergy.

Mr. Chapman: Nearly three quarters of Church of England churches are listed. As it is generally accepted


that the most beneficial thing that could be done to promote the conservation of listed buildings would be to remove VAT on repairs and as Government Ministers are hiding behind the excuse that they cannot change this because they are tied to European Community regulations, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Church Commissioners ought to get their act together with their counterparts in EEC countries and impress upon the European Commission and the European Parliament the need for change? Is it not appropriate that that should be done in this European Architectural Heritage Year?

Mr. Alison: I have a very great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's desire that the churches should have more funds with which to pay stipends and that they should have to contribute less to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am bound to tell him that as the approaches to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of obtaining a reduction have hitherto proved fruitless, the idea of leading a successful campaign to the European Community, involving all the churches and others, is an even more daunting and, I suspect. an even more profitless, prospect.

Mr. Frank Larsen and Others (Prosecution)

Mr. Richard Caborn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision to stop the prosecution proceedings against Frank Larsen and others.
The Attorney-General made a statement to the House on Friday. Although he answered a number of very serious questions that were asked, he left many unanswered. Indeed, he provoked many more — not least the involvement of our security services and the South African security services. One accepts that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not necessarily in a position to answer the questions that were put to him, but they must be answered to the satisfaction of the House, not least because this weekend the Sunday press carried quite clear and attributable statements about a major difference, if not a disagreement, between the anti-terrorist squad and MI5. For example, The Observer said:
After MI5 was consulted on 12 October, officers of the Director of Public Prosecutions' special case work division met Superintendent Talbot. They told him to drop the case and release the men … The anti-terrorist squad clearly disagreed: as late as 15 October its officers were pressing on with inquiries in the hope of reversing the decision.
We have to place these events against the background of international attacks on the African National Congress in the last few years, the bombing of the ANC offices in London and the arson attacks upon the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement in London. Those last two incidents could have resulted in very serious injuries, if not in loss of life. I am sure that Conservative Members would not want British subjects who are working in the offices of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, which is a legitimate organisation, to suffer injury.
I highlight those two incidents because they could have resulted in loss of life, but there is a tremendous list of incidents against these two organisations and others. Very important, urgent and specific issues are involved in this case. Only a public and open debate can ensure that those outside this Chamber who are representatives of legitimate organisations are not lifted off the streets of London and possibly assassinated, or bombed out of their offices.
If our security forces were not involved and the head of the security services, the Prime Minister, is satisfied that that is the case, a full debate should be welcomed by all hon. Members. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will grant the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision to drop the prosecution proceedings against Frank Larsen and others.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I hope that the hon. Member will find other methods of bringing the matter before the House.

Scottish and Newcastle Breweries

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing an important, urgent and specific matter, namely,
the deep sense of outrage felt by people in the north over the below-the-belt tactics being deployed by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries in its bid to take over Matthew Brown Brewery.
The matter is specific because if Scottish and Newcastle Breweries—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please keep his Standing Order No. 20 application in line with the application that he made to me?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall come directly to the point.
The matter is specific because if S and N were to succeed it is likely to close the profitable Matthew Brown brewery in Workington, in which £750,000 has just been invested. The people of Workington are deeply concerned that its closure would further boost the high levels of unemployment.
The matter is important because S and N is turning the stock market collapse to its commercial advantage by stampeding frightened investors into selling their shares in Matthew Brown for cash. The spectacle of S and N's squalid tactics on the stock market can only be likened to the activity of a wartime black marketeer, who profits out of misfortune, or to a looter, whose only opportunity to loot occurs when a natural disaster has struck. Where are the traditional British values of fair play? At a time when desperate attempts are under way to restore sanity to the money markets, surely the greedy and avaricious practices of the Casbah should be condemned.
The matter is urgent because this bid epitomises the contradiction that lies at the heart of merger policy. On the one hand agencies of the Government are promoting enterprise, but on the other we have a merger policy that allows a predator to pursue its quarry with the single objective of stripping out its assets. This hunt is taking place, not in the industrial heartland of the north, but in the City of London, as yuppies clamber over themselves in a desperate attempt to cut their losses.
The matter is also urgent because the affair, which is riddled with irregularities, awaits the findings of the stock exchange surveillance department investigation into insider dealing on the day prior to S and N's bid.
The House will want an assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that this bid will be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Scottish and Newcastle Breweries must be stopped in its tracks. A debate will stop it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of the bid for Matthew Brown by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries following upon the 3 o'clock deadline set by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries for the acceptance of cash in the purchase of shares.
I listened with care to what the hon. Member said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised


to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise to note the failure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House about the unusual and perturbing situation that has arisen in the financial markets.
I rise on a point of order because not only is it inadequate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not come to the House to make a statement, but he has added insult to injury by proposing to speak to the stock exchange this evening. As a result, he will be reporting to the stock exchange on these events, instead of to this House, to which he is properly accountable. The Leader of the House is present, and I hope that it will be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House before he addresses the stock exchange — he certainly has time to do so —so that at the earliest opportunity he can account to the House for his responsibilities in this matter.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that today is an Opposition Supply day and that it was up to the Opposition parties to choose the subject for debate? Since events on the stock exchange have been unfolding for some days, we must assume that they did not take sufficient interest in what had been happening to select the matter for debate.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not wholly unprecedented that an economic matter of such significance as the decline of the stock exchange and the importance attached to the economic consequences of the collapse in share values should not lead to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appear before the House? Many hon. Members see the Chancellor of the Exchequer night after night on the television screen, yet have not had an opportunity to question him in the House. Should that not be remedied without further delay?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rooker— [Interruption.] That was a slip of the tongue. Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Speaking in my capacity as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I think that we need your help. The House is in danger of looking like a Ruritanian assembly, indulging itself at the periphery, but not dealing with the problems at the heart of the nation's affairs. As the financial crisis sends the economies of the Western world spinning perilously close to calamity—we hope that that will not happen—it seems extraordinary that although every commentator in every country is talking about the matter, there has been no discussion in Parliament. I understand that the Government have been asked to make a statement but have said that the matter has nothing to do with them. However, the Chancellor is talking to everybody else about it. I understand also that there have been requests for private notice questions. Some of us find it mind-boggling that such private notice questions should be disallowed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to any applications of that sort.

Mr. Sedgemore: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to help the House and either urge the Chancellor to make a statement or give an assurance that if one of us asks for a private notice question to be tabled tomorrow you will accept it so that the Chancellor will have an opportunity to explain what could be the most dangerous economic event of the 20th century.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an additional dimension, in that in a few days' time the Government will be hoping to flog off their holding in British Petroleum. That is obviously linked to what is taking place on the stock market now. I was confronted by somebody in my constituency today who asked whether to go for BP shares or get into gold futures. I could not answer that question. Therefore, I desperately need the help of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you advise us whether it is good for the dignity of the House, as we face the most severe recession since the war, and the fact that before the end of this year we will see mortgage foreclosures and a further rise in unemployment, to hear Conservative Members crying like public schoolboys as we face the scale of that recession?

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I think you will agree that we are at a crisis in which the casino-like society created by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is collapsing. Surely he should be here to explain that, particularly before he goes to the stock exchange, if indeed there is a stock exchange left to go to.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday during business questions I asked the Leader of the House, who is present, to arrange for a statement to be made on this matter. It looks as if either he has no control over the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, or he has completely ignored the wishes of many of those who want a statement to be made. It is high time that the House understood that this is not just a matter for the casino economy. What is happening on the stock exchange and on the stock exchanges internationally will affect the livelihood of all our constituents.
Labour Members are concerned about the unemployment that will follow and about further cuts that will be announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement, when he eventually makes one, whereas Tory Members like unemployment and are not concerned, but that does not mean that there should not be a statement. It is a scandal that the Tory Government do not have the guts to present their case at the Dispatch Box. It is time that they did so.

Mr. David Ashby: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to describe Conservative Members as being unconcerned about unemployment?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with me, but I will take two further points of order from hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could not the Chancellor's

attitude in failing to make a statement to the House about the stock exchange crisis be described as the Nero-Nero option?

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not clear that the Labour party is seeking to make a crisis out of a problem? Stock exchange prices are higher than they were at this time last year, but Labour Members were not calling for a debate then. It is clear that they wish to cause a crisis where none exists.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker.: Order.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: No, I am on my feet. I have listened to the points of order because I recognise the concern of the House. I was not previously aware that the Chancellor was to make any statement outside the House. That is why I have allowed these exchanges today. As the whole House recognises, however, this is not a matter for me. The Leader of the House is present. I am certain that he will have noted what has been said about this matter, and no doubt it is one which may properly be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We recognise your dilemma in this matter, but you have a responsibility to try to sustain the reputation of the House. The decline on the stock exchange is being discussed in every pub and wine bar, and the Chancellor is going to the stock exchange to talk about it, but he has not come to the House. That is unreasonable. It is unfair to the House and to the country, and it will bring both you, Mr. Speaker, and the House into disrepute unless the Chancellor reports to this place and explains what he is up to.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that we can carry this any further. I must emphasise what the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) said. There could have been an opportunity to discuss this matter today. but there is nothing that I can do about it at this stage.

Mr. John Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Conservative Members have been referring to the subjects of today's debates. May I make it clear on behalf of the Opposition that if the Chancellor will come to the House at Seven o'clock to take part in a debate we shall propose that the subject of the debate be changed to cover this urgent topic. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is too serious a matter for shouting across the Chamber.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order on that matter.

Mr. Dalyell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes. My point of order concerns precedent. The precedent is this. Will you reflect, Mr Speaker, whether there has been a change of policy in the


rulings of Mr. Speaker? I have checked this with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). In the economic crisis of July 1966, Mr. Speaker King took certain key decisions off his own bat about requiring the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, our former right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, to come to the Dispatch Box against his will. I understand that that was Mr. Speaker's decision at the time. Will you reflect, Mr. Speaker, and possibly rule tomorrow, on whether there has been a change of policy from the precedent set by Mr. Speaker King?

Mr. Speaker: I shall, of course, look up that precedent. However, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for the making of statements. Let us move on to the statutory instruments—

Mr. Dobson: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that if the Opposition wish to change the business for this evening we need the agreement of the Government so to do?

Mr. Speaker: That is so, but I am sure that that matter could, and should, properly be discussed through the usual channels.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (No. 2) (Amendment No. 10) Order 1987 1987, No. 1804) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Opposition Day

[IST ALLOTTED DAY]

Mr. Speaker: I regret that the order of the two motions on the Order Paper for today's Opposition business does not accord with what was announced by the Leader of the House last Thursday. It is proposed to revert to what was the original intention — that the firearms debate should come first and the education debate second.
In addition, today's Order Paper is not in the normal full printed version. As hon. Members will have noted, this is not the first deficiency in the House's papers since we resumed last Wednesday. I am investigating the cause of the difficulties that have occurred. My preliminary inquiries show that the recent introduction of new printing methods is at the root of the problem. There have also been abnormal amounts of copy in some areas of work. I understand that the Stationery Office is seeking to ensure that delays and other difficulties are kept to a minimum.

Firearms

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House supports the need for legislation which will provide additional and stringent controls over the possession and use of firearms: calls upon the Home Secretary to include within that legislation the requirement of a separate certificate for each individual firearm, a central register of all approved firearms, a prohibition of the private sale and use of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons and a total ban on all mail-order sales of firearms: and further calls upon the Home Secretary immediately to introduce such a Bill in this House.
I should like to express my surprise and regret that the Government propose to divide the House at 7 o'clock on what should and could be a subject of unanimous agreement. It was in the hope of such an agreement that we tabled a motion that is constructive rather than polemical. The motion proposes a strengthening of the gun laws, which is demanded by the general public, and happens to be a strengthening of the gun laws that is supported by the police forces of this country, yet the Home Secretary has tabled an amendment that amounts to no more than a string of platitudes. I presume that he is still not ready to stand up either to the shotgun lobby or to the mail order lobby, but whatever the motives of that vacuous amendment, the result is obvious and will be clear to the country. What Conservative Members will vote for this evening is a form of words that can be described only as wet. It is also risibly complacent, for it promises firearms legislation during this Session of Parliament.
The Home Secretary will recall that when, two weeks ago, he was kind enough to consult me about legislation concerning the limitation on knives and related weapons I asked, in his presence, the officials who advise him what legislation on these matters in this Session of Parliament meant. They told me that there was no hope within the present scheme of things for any new laws to be on the statute book before the summer of 1988. Frankly, the Home Secretary makes himself ridiculous by first


identifying a problem that he describes as urgent and then announcing that he proposes to remedy it some time during the middle of next year.
Throughout the country there is widespread agreement that we need more stringent, comprehensive and effective firearms regulations. I had hoped that that widespread agreement would be reflected in the House, despite the barrage of gun club propaganda to which we have been subjected in recent weeks. Some of that propaganda has been so irrational, blatant and obviously of a special pleading nature that it must have damaged its own cause, though clearly it has, in part, intimidated the Home Secretary. Public anxiety is inevitably high, and it has been heightened by the Hungerford tragedy and the other terrible shootings of the summer.
It is important to make absolutely clear that those terrible events demonstrated, rather than created, the urgent need for gun control. Indeed, as long ago as last March London Labour Members of Parliament wrote to the Home Secretary setting out and warning of the dangers of guns in London, and asking for a revision of the laws governing the ownership and use of guns and knives. That was in March, and I think the Home Secretary will tell us today that if he is to respond to that letter at all it will not be until next March—several months after a year has passed since that plea from London was presented to him.
I propose to spend little or no time this afternoon arguing the case for tighter gun control. That, I believe, is generally accepted, at least outside the House. However, I propose to concentrate on the way in which that tighter gun control should be achieved. I repeat that, in my view, it would be achieved most successfully if there were agreement in Parliament about how the desired objective could be achieved.
Arms control depends on three factors: the content of the law; the enforcement of the law; and the acceptance by those who own guns of the need to co-operate fully in the law's application. Such co-operation would most likely come about if the House came to a unanimous conclusion about stronger regulation. Even though that is not possible this afternoon, I hope that, on reflection, and when he has had his necessary consultations with the sporting interests and others, the Home Secretary will come to accept the virtues of a common approach and realise that if he desires an agreement on both sides he may have to rally round a central position which, although not altogether attractive either to the gun clubs or the Country Landowners Association, is nevertheless demanded and wanted by the country. I hope he understands that if there is to be the co-operation over gun control that I suspect he still seeks, he has to move into that central position. We shall do our best to accommodate him if he is reasonable enough to try to accommodate us.
In such a spirit, I want to make one thing plain. The Opposition accept that the possession and use of firearms is often legitimate and sometimes necessary. Farmers need guns. A man or woman has the right to spend leisure time shooting in competitions or in properly organised target practice. I admit that farmers, members of gun clubs and legitimate owners and users may be inconvenienced by what I propose this afternoon. However, I hope that most of them will regard that inconvenience as a small price to pay for a reduction in the number of guns that are illegally possessed, illegitimately used and irresponsibly carried from place to place. That inconvenience is also the price that they must pay for the necessary reduction in the

amount of ammunition that is insecurely kept and unnecessarily transported in areas where it may be stolen and may be misused.
Before I describe the nature and extent of the controls that I propose for firearms, I should like to refer briefly to the parallel problem of knives and other edged weapons, not least because we can learn from the principles of the Home Secretary's proposals and from the way in which he went about proposing them and thus obtained a great deal of agreement throughout the House. The Home Secretary proposes to prohibit the manufacture, sale and possession of various martial arts weapons, despite the objection that he will get from the martial arts clubs. We shall support the Government in that.
The Home Secretary proposes to define in law the circumstances in which it is legitimate and legal to carry a knife. Possessing a knife or a similar weapon in a public place, except for those defined purposes, is to become illegal. We shall support the Government's proposal about that. The inevitable consequence of those new regulations will be to place an added responsibility on those w ho sell knives, military memorabilia and what is euphemistically called survival equipment. When the shopkeepers and their associations complain, as complain they will, we shall support the Government. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see our high streets totally free from the so-called martial arts shops and so-called survival shops. The several that exist in my constituency make no contribution to the life and work of the area and represent a perpetual danger and temptation to young men. We shall support the Home Secretary when the complaints come in.
Equally, we shall support the Home Secretary on the prohibition of the sale of knives and similar weapons by post, catalogue and mail order. Notwithstanding that, the Home Secretary's scheme about knives carries with it two great problems. The first is his intention to shift the onus of proof to the person found carrying a knife. To require a suspect to prove his innocence is, in general, wholly unacceptable in a free society. However, in the case of the possession of knives it is possible to construct powers that preserve essential liberties and enable the police effectively to act against those who unlawfully carry knives and similar weapons. I hope that the Home Secretary will enter into early discussions with us on that precise point in order to present a chance of obtaining agreement on knives and their prohibition in the way that I want to see agreement on the safer use of guns.
The second problem about the proposal on knives is what the Home Secretary describes as an extension of the stop-and-search powers. I opposed the introduction of stop and search when five years ago it was first proposed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I still oppose that general power, because it is open to abuse and is certain to result in harassment. During the passage of that Bill I made it clear that in my judgment the right to stop on reasonable suspicion and the right to search with the safeguard of prior warning and subsequent report was necessary when a police officer suspected the possession of an offensive weapon. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said much the same thing when the Bill was reintroduced after the 1983 general election.
It is our intention to support the Home Secretary's proposals with as much enthusiasm as we can. That is because we believe that the principles on which they are based are right. The principles on which that legislation is


based ought to be applied equally to the regulations governing firearms. We ought to define far more precisely than is the present practice acceptable reasons for the ownership and use of firearms. Certificates and licences should be issued only to applicants who can demonstrate a specific, explicit and legitimate use. That rule ought to apply, and must apply, to all shotguns.
The idea that a shotgun or any number of shotguns may be available to every applicant who passes a perfunctory test is clearly absurd. That is the clear view of the Police Federation, which presently carries out that perfunctory test. The check is clearly and unavoidably inadequate. All licences and certificates should be issued for, and thus should legalise the possession of, only one weapon. The dangers of allowing one certificate to legalise the possession of an unlimited number of shotguns are so great and so obvious that to me at least it is astonishing that the system has survived for so long.

Sir John Farr: Flow can every shotgun be individually certificated when, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, many shotguns have no form of numbering on them?

Mr. Hattersley: I hope that I am not stretching the hon. Gentleman's imagination too far when I say that the law must require shotguns to have numbers engraved upon them. That will be necessary if there is to be the sort of control that I, the public and the police want. Every gun must be individually accounted for, and the burden of requiring shotgun makers, some of whom I represent in my constituency, to number their guns is a small inconvenience if it results in fewer people getting their heads shot off. It is a balance of interests in which the numbering of guns pales into insignificance when compared to the advantages of control.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman a rhetorical question. He knows well that the possession of a shotgun certificate allows him or any other person to possess any number of shotguns. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me and with the Police Federation that the test for such possession is perfunctory to the point of being meaningless. If a person is enabled, through the possession of a single certificate, to become a multiple shotgun owner, that person can respond to an advertisement in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine and buy himself a shot slugster, fast operating, pump action, detachable barrel, magnum chambered shotgun for £155 by sending a deposit of £17·50. The idea that a magnum chambered pump action cut-off shotgun with a 24½ in detachable barrel should be available through the post to anybody who has passed his perfunctory test is self-evidently unacceptable. I shall be sorry if the Home Secretary does not make it clear in his speech that, despite the vacuity of his amendment, he intends to take the action against shotguns that the country expects of him and that the country wants.
Unless there is an individual shotgun certificate, it will be impossible to have any real check on or control over the guns that are in general use. It will be impossible to check on the security in which those guns and the ammunition that they use are kept, and it will make impossible the setting up of a firearms register which the police rightly regard as essential for proper control. The combination of an indefinite and extended number of guns available on

one certificate and the availability of those guns through the post by mail order is an impossible situation and cannot continue.
I know that farmers will regard the individual certificate as a burden. However, it is an example of the inconvenience that legitimate owners will have to bear in the interests of public safety. Even for legitimate owners and users there must be regulations governing the carrying of firearms and ammunition in public places.

Mr. Robert Litherland: According to an article on the front page of the Manchester Evening News, Members of Parliament can bring private weaponry into the House for the purpose of club shooting. How does my right hon. Friend view that?

Mr. Hattersley: I regard Members of Parliament as suitable for the same treatment as the general public. As I believe that, in general, gun club members and people who wish to spend their time in that way should be required to keep their guns and their ammunition at their gun club rather than carry them home each evening or leave them lying about, as I fear is sometimes the case, I believe that the same rule has to apply to the House of Commons gun club. Since one of the objects of the restrictions I propose is to stop the unnecessary carrying of guns and ammunition, I believe that, as is often the case, what applies to the general public ought to apply to us as well.
One of the extraordinary features of the Hungerford tragedy was the revelation that licensed guns were kept in a car boot and were each day carried to work. The foreman of the man whose guns they were knew that they were in the boot, and nobody is quite sure whether the car and the guns within it were unlawful or whether the law was dubious on the matter. Carrying guns in such circumstances ought to be an obvious and automatically prosecutable offence, as would the carrying of knives in similar circumstances under the Home Secretary's proposal.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am listening to the right hon. Member with some interest. Is his proposal that nobody who is not a farmer or a member of a gun club shooting at targets of one kind or another should be allowed to possess a shotgun?

Mr. Hattersley: Nobody who cannot demonstrate a legitimate need or use should be able to possess such a weapon. In the coming months the Home Secretary will define "legitimate need" and "legitimate use" of knives, swords and similarly edged weapons, and there is no reason in the world, except the different class interests involved, why he should not equally define the legitimate use of guns. If he can do it for knives, he can do it for guns. The only thing that separates the two principles, which is why the hon. Members on the Government Benches have suddenly come to life, is that guns are owned by one class of people and knives are feared to be owned by a different class in society.
It ought to be an automatically prosecutable offence to carry a gun in a public place when it is unnecessary to do so. The law ought to be explicit. Guns ought to be transported in public only when it is unavoidably necessary. Ammunition should be carried only in the same essential circumstances. I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr.


Litherland) about the House of Commons gun club, that there is no need for gun club members to carry home every night either their guns or their ammunition.

Mr. David Ashby: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say whether he agrees that there should be no automatic right to carry guns through crowded cities or to leave shotguns unattended in the back of Land Rovers in market squares.

Mr. Ashby: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever visited a gun club? Has he seen that, by their very nature, they are normally situated in remote places, where they cause minimum disturbance in their neighbourhood, and that nearly always the gun club building is a shed that can be kicked open? Does he really think that that is the sort of place in which guns should be kept?

Mr. Hattersley: I would place an absolute obligation on gun clubs to provide circumstances in which the guns can be kept securely without fear and without doubt. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that gun clubs are the ramshackle buildings that he describes, that seems quite extraordinary, because I suspect that some members leave their guns overnight in such ramshackle buildings. The suggestion that guns are left in those circumstances seems far more frightening than the situation that I was describing. There should be an obligation on gun clubs to have a secure place where members' guns and ammunition can be kept. The only argument against that is vested interest and special pleading.
As well as there being legitimate occasions when guns of a sort can be used and carried, and therefore there being a necessity to prescribe the occasions when the carrying of guns of all sorts is illegal, some guns should not be possessed or used in any circumstances. We ought to prohibit the private sale and private ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. I know that some collectors and vociferous gun club members will argue that the possession of a Kalashnikov is essential to the pursuit of their hobby or pleasure. However, their freedom to pursue their leisure activity has to be weighed against the freedom of the general public from fear of sudden mayhem and casual slaughter.
That essential freedom requires us to prohibit the sale of guns which in no circumstances should it be legitimate to use for amusement or pleasure. In my view, it also requires us to prohibit the sale of guns through any form of mail order. I know that the way in which sales are promoted through the Country Sports magazine is slightly more elegant than the methods employed by the martial arts bulletins, but the same principle ought to apply. Guns ought not to be bought and sold through the post.
The stop-and-search principle that the Home Secretary described so honestly in terms of his knife legislation ought to apply also to guns. If, as we should, we define the circumstances in which it is acceptable to possess a knife, we must also provide a similar definition for firearms. If youths in the inner cities are to be searched for knives, we cannot allow more prosperous adults to hang around country public houses with shotguns in the boots of their cars, or allow ammunition to be carried carelessly and pointlessly from place to place.
The proposals that I have made for the strict control of firearms seem so reasonable to me, and I believe to the general public, that it is astonishing that the Home

Secretary is not prepared to support them. They are supported by the Police Federation, I understand by most of the chief constables and I believe overwhelmingly by the general public. I ask the Home Secretary's support for them, because I believe that a strong statement now will lead to the urgent action that the country demands.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: If the right hon. Gentleman is serious, as I am sure he is, about reducing murder and mayhem on the streets, will he explain why the Labour party has voted in the last four years against the prevention and suppression of terrorism legislation?

Mr. Hattersley: I look forward to dealing with that subject when it comes up for debate in about a month's time. I had the privilege of being the first shadow Home Secretary to argue that we should vote against that provision, and I shall vote against it and urge my hon. Friends to vote against it when it again comes before the House.
I say two things in answer to the obliquely relevant question of the hon. Gentleman. First, the only way to combat terrorism is to drive a wedge between the real terrorists and the law-abiding population with whom they cohabit. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 encourages terrorism by alienating the law-abiding population of Ireland. Secondly. I am struggling today, though I did not so struggle on that occasion, to find a measure of agreement between the parties on an issue about which I think the general public want to see as much agreement as possible. The trivial intervention of the hon. Gentleman will only underline the clear truth of the debate, which is that the Government do not want unanimity on this subject. They want to appear tough and to talk tough, but they want to collapse at the first threatened response from the gun lobby and from the country interests. That has been demonstrated by every bit of gibberish that has come from the Government Benches this afternoon.
I want agreement on the nature and the timing of the measures. I repeat — I doubt whether the Home Secretary will deny it — that the earliest opportunity for the new measures to become law is for clauses to be spatchcocked to the Criminal Justice Bill that is going through the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, a week last Wednesday, his officials told me that that Bill could not possibly become law until the middle of next year. That is absurd. A Bill should be presented to the House before Christmas. The right Bill — a tough, just and effective Bill — would have a swift passage. I hope that then, if not today, the agreement of the House will be obtained and will do more than strengthen the regulations. I hope that it will strike a blow against not only the improper use and possession of guns, but against the gun culture that is developing in Britain. That gun culture is not country sports and organised clubs, but the nightmare world of guns that is glamourised by some television programmes and newspapers. It is worth remembering that before Hungerford, when Rambo became a figure of hatred and fear, Rambo was a word that was used as praise and as the description of a hero in half our tabloid newspapers.
What I had hoped, when I believed that there could be unanimity today, and what I still hope will be possible through discussion, is that a message can come from the House of Commons not only that guns are acceptable in


our society only when they are used under the most stringent controls, but that in other circumstances they are illegal and that those who break the law, whoever they may be, are not heroes but criminals and will receive the most severe penalties.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
believes that the time has come for a strengthened system of firearms controls: welcomes the announcement by the Home Secretary on 22 September of the main conclusions of the study of ways in which firearms legislation might be improved: supports the need for further urgent but careful and detailed consideration of other possible measures under review: and endorses the Government's intention to announce shortly the outcome of this examination and to introduce new firearms legislation during this session of Parliament".
I suppose that it is something that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) should believe that he is encouraging the Government rather than obstructing and holding us back. He will understand that that represents a change to Home Office Ministers. I hope that it will apply to the other proposals that we shall introduce for the greater protection of the public. But the right hon. Gentleman's account of the Government's attitude was ludicrous, and the reason why he gave that account emerged not in his text but in what he said under challenge. The strong tinge of class warfare came right through his proposal and undermined the pretence that he was trying to make of searching for central ground on which we could all travel. That point will emerge as I describe the Government's attitude.
I go this far with the right hon. Gentleman: this is a timely debate. The Opposition's motion is concerned solely with firearms but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Government are engaged in a substantial overhaul of the law which controls the possession, sale and use of many types of weapon, including but not confined to firearms. We have a simple purpose. Those controls are part of crime prevention, and if we can find a reasonable way to strengthen them we shall add to the protection given to the citizen and to the security of our homes, streets and places of work.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, we propose to ban the manufacture and sale of weapons such as hand claws, knuckle dusters and death stars, for which we believe there is no legitimate use. We propose a radical change in the law on the carrying of knives. Both proposals will be included as amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. I mention them because it is important that the public, and especially the legitimate shooters, should understand that our proposals on firearms will be one part of the general effort which I have described to strengthen public safety.
Strong action is required in relation to the three types of weapons that I have mentioned: martial arts weapons, knives and firearms. But the danger from each of them is different. That is where, to some extent, I quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The ban on the manufacture and sale of martial arts weapons is justified. With knives, the danger is overwhelmingly the concealed carrying of such weapons. There can be no licensing system for knives, so we must act, as we propose, on the

carrying of knives. There is a licensing system for firearms, and the right hon. Gentleman spent most of his speech discussing how that licensing system should be strengthened.
The right hon. Gentleman also urged a reversal of proof on the carrying of firearms such as the one that I propose, which he will support, on the carrying of knives. I do not wish to draft for the Opposition, but I suppose that they have roughly this sort of proposal in mind:
A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him)"—
the onus of proof has shifted—
he has with him in a public place a loaded shot gun or loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm.
That is a rough summary of what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, shifting the onus of proof on the carrying of firearms, and it is contained in section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968. If he reads that, as I hope he now will, he will see that the law as it stands reasonably defines the proposition that he spent several minutes criticising me for not having put forward.

Mr. Hattersley: I will give the Home Secretary credit for not realising the mistake that he has made. He misunderstands the position. I want a much clearer definition of when firearms can and cannot be carried and the circumstances in which they can be carried between one place and another. What he now accepts—if he did not accept it before this afternoon, he has heard his hon. Friends baying for its continuance this afternoon — is that guns can be carried unnecessarily between gun club and home. That is what I want to prohibit, and it is not covered by the Act.

Mr. Hurd: When the right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to shift the burden of proof on the carrying of firearms, he was clearly unaware that it had been shifted in the 1968 Act. The main thrust of his proposal is already in the law.
There are two pools of firearms in Britain, one legal and the other illegal. The number of serious offences involving firearms has increased by 61 per cent. since 1975, although the proportion of serious offences involving firearms has remained much the same. As regards illegal firearms, the problem is one not of the law, but of enforcement by the police. As regards firearms which are now legally held, on which the right hon. Gentleman concentrated, we should be clear about our realistic aims. There is no point in pretending that by making changes in the law we could guarantee the safety of the public against the quiet, withdrawn citizen who answers every question, fills in every form and keeps every law until the moment comes when he commits an atrocious crime. We cannot give Hungerford an absolute guarantee against Ryan.
Nevertheless, we must strengthen the law. I have made some proposals and I am considering others. As the House knows, we began to look at the legislation afresh earlier in the summer in the context of suggestions that it was time to have another amnesty. But of course — I do not quarrel with the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put this point — the disaster at Hungerford accelerated and widened the scope of that work. No one who visited Hungerford in those days could fail to be struck by the contrast between the peacefulness of the town and the hurricane of violence which struck it that afternoon. The sympathy which we all felt, and which we felt again after


the murders in Wolverhampton and the recent indiscriminate shootings in Bristol, has not ebbed away. It is right that our sympathy for those who suffered should, among other things, take the form of a determination to look more sharply at the law governing the legal possession of firearms. We must do whatever we sensibly can to ensure that legal authority is not given to dangerous people and to ensure that guns which are legally authorised do not pass thereafter into dangerous hands.
A balance must be struck. The House would not be taking the matter seriously if it did not fully recognise the wide variety of legitimate, indeed often admirable and highly disciplined, ways in which firearms are used in this country. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook recognised that. There is the case of the farmer who needs to keep the vermin on his farm under control. There are sportsmen who practise country sports. Above all, there are other sportsmen who belong to clubs, who shoot in national and international competitions and who pride themselves on a tradition of discipline and self-regulation. No one who has visited Bisley — as I did for the first time last year — would fall into the silly trap of denouncing the principle of private ownership and private use of firearms in this country in sweeping terms. We have tried to weigh all that up.

Mr. Ron Davies: No doubt the Home Secretary will recall the exchanges that we had across the Dispatch Box 16 months ago when he assured the House that he and his fellow Home Office Ministers saw no need to review firearms legislation. There is no doubt that the shadow of Hungerford is hanging over this debate and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to that. However, legitimate shooting interests in my constituency and others in south Wales have put it to me that the proposals that the Government intend to introduce and those suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spark brook would never of themselves prevent a repetition of the events in Hungerford. Will the Home Secretary address his mind and his comments to the particular set of circumstances at Hungerford and explain how his proposals would prevent Michael Ryan or someone like Ryan from doing the same thing again?

Mr. Hurd: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes he should listen to those passages that immediately precede his intervention. I have just dealt with that point. I said that there can be no absolute guarantee for Hungerford against Ryan. Nevertheless, the work that we started before Hungerford, which has been accelerated and extended since then and in the light of other shootings, is designed to shift the balance substantially in the interests of public safety and the objectives that I have just stated.
We propose to keep the main categories of regulation under the Firearms Act 1968. Fully automatic weapons such as machine guns are already prohibited. They require my special authority for their purchase and possession. Authorities are normally granted only to selected dealers involved in the import and export market. Also, under the existing system, rifles, pistols and shotguns with barrels less than 24 inches in length fall under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 and require a firearms certificate. That means that a good reason is required for each weapon to be held and details are provided. Shotguns with barrels of 24 inches or more may be purchased or possessed on

shotgun certificate, and the test for the issue of such a certificate is mainly one of good character. That is the existing system.
One of the weapons used by Ryan was a 7·62 mm calibre self-loading Kalashnikov rifle. That weapon has a magazine capacity and rate of fire that makes it especially dangerous. I can see no justification for the possession of such weapons in private hands and I believe that they should become prohibited weapons. I also propose that burst fire weapons, carbines and certain short-barrelled shotguns should also become prohibited.

Mr. Eric Forth: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend's line of thought and the policy that he is touching upon, but has he yet given any thought to the subject that has been raised with me by many people who own the kind of weapons that he is describing, that of possible compensation? Someone may have owned a perfectly legal item, but that may be rendered illegal because of events. Will my right hon. Friend be prepared to consider that point?

Mr. Hurd: I am aware of that point. As my hon. Friend said has been put to us increasingly over recent weeks. There are substantial difficulties of principle and practice in going down that road. However, I would be happy to discuss that matter with my hon. Friend.
The ease with which military and other weapons can be converted from one classification to another has also been a worry. In many cases, such weapons can be restored to their original condition without the need for professional skill. That is why I propose that where a firearm is converted from a higher classification into a lower one., it will retain its original higher classification. In other words, once a Bren gun always a Bren gun, no matter what changes are made to it. That is an important clarification of the law.
I am proposing a number of significant changes in relation to shotguns. The loophole whereby visitors to Great Britain may buy and possess shotguns without a shotgun certificate will be closed, and more satisfactory arrangements will be made for visiting sportsmen. I have also decided that pump action and self-loading shotguns should be brought under the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968 so that a good reason will be necessary for their possession. I believe that there must be a statutory obligation on shotgun holders to store their shotguns securely when they are not being used.
We have already announced our intention to raise the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime to life imprisonment, and we shall additionally raise the maximum penalty for being in possession of. a shotgun without a certificate in line with the similar offence in respect of firearms. That offence will become triable as an indictable offence with a maximum penalty of three years' imprisonment or a fine or both. We have already tabled an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to that effect.
It is important to take illegally held firearms out of circulation as far as we can and that is why we intend to hold a firearms amnesty during the course of next year. Some people have said that the amnesty should take place immediately. I doubt the wisdom of that. If we are to derive maximum benefit from an amnesty, it needs to be properly worked out. Procedural guidance will need to be


given to all police forces and a publicity campaign will be necessary so that holders of illegal weapons know what to do. It makes sense that an amnesty should coincide with changes to the law so that suitable arrangements can be made for the disposal of weapons held illegally and under existing legislation and also weapons that the new legislation will no longer permit.
I am considering other suggestions and that is why the debate is timely. We shall look carefully at proposals from both sides of the House. However, I make no apology for not producing legislation or a detailed package in the first days after the recess. The arrangements that Parliament will work out on this subject must be robust enough to last perhaps another 20 years. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook acknowledged in one part of his speech —although he contradicted it in others—that means that legitimate interests must be consulted. The complications and technical details must be worked out.

Mr. Richard Holt: I understand that it will take some time for the law to reach the statute book. However, in the meantime, are chief constables allowed to take the law into their own hands by refusing to issue certificates to legitimate people who apply for them as I believe is the position with the Metropolitan Police and others who refuse to work within the current laws? Are the police allowed to do that?

Mr. Hurd: Various chief officers and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis have made statements, but of course they are operating within existing law. The Home Office is not dictating how they should operate the law because that is the business of the police. However, we are giving them guidance during this interim stage that they should act as strictly as is compatible with the law. That is the reasonable way of handling the immediate situation.

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I will deal with that point in a moment.
We are not interested in purely cosmetic proposals which sound good when first advanced, but which would simply add to the substantial burden that the police carry without improving the protection of the citizen. That must be a consideration. We must also consider the extra points in addition to those that I announced towards the end of September at Torquay.
I can give the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook an example of a further measure which we are considering, but which we have not yet decided upon. We are considering whether it would be right to link the purchase of shotgun ammunition to the production of a shotgun certificate. To some extent, that would deal with the point about ammunition that has been raised by many people. Other suggestions have been made along those lines. They are worth considering and we shall consult the interested parties with a view to producing a package of measures by the end of November if things go smoothly which can then be introduced to the House before Christmas in the form of a firearms Bill. That is roughly what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was pressing me to say. There is no reason why he should hang on my every utterance. He has other and better things to do. When I recently spoke to the Metropolitan branch of the Police Federation—

my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was there — I made that point and set out the timing. I am glad to confirm it now.
Progress after that, of course, is not entirely within the Government's hands. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said on that point. If precedent is anything to go by, both Houses of Parliament will want to look at the matter with some care. But, given that there will be a separate Bill, and if there is reasonable co-operation, there is no reason why it should not move fairly swiftly on to the statute book. Indeed, it could be on the statute book well before the Criminal Justice Bill, which is an immense Bill that the House will want to consider again—it is now in another place — in which our proposals on knives and martial arts weapons will be contained.

Mr. Hattersley: Hanging on to the Home Secretary's every word, as I do, I recall what he said about guns, but I also recall what he explicitly said to me about knives a fortnight ago. We were then told that the knife element in his stronger weapons proposals will have to wait for the Criminal Justice Bill and will not be on the statute book until the summer. Since he has received from me a degree of co-operation, which I suspect he did not anticipate but which I gave him because I believed it to be right, may we have a Bill before Christmas which refers to firearms and knives? With a proper degree of co-operation, can we not move forward as fast as the public expect us to move on this matter?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman ingeniously shifted his ground. A few moments ago, he thunderously pressed me to produce a separate firearms Bill which could be pushed through reasonably speedily. I told him, with documentary proof, that that was already my public intention. The more that one puts into a Bill, the slower it tends to be. The knife amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill will be forthcoming shortly. They will go into the Bill. I obviously hope that the Bill will go forward speedily. I am encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's reaction. I hope that he will have a word with some of his lawyers and some of his right hon. and learned Friends, particularly those in another place. I hope that they will carefully weigh what he said about the onus of proof and, indeed, the stop and search power. Subject to the wishes of the Members of both Houses, I obviously want to make speedy progress with both sets of proposals.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: From the point of view of the police service, my right hon. Friend's timetable is convenient. Although the Police Federation has put forward a clear policy—I believe that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) referred to it—the police see a need carefully to examine some of the complex points that my right hon. Friend has mentioned. The police would find it perfectly reasonable that there should be at least a few more weeks in which to consider the matter before we rush into firm legislation.

Mr. Hurd: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. The police are not a homogenous entity. Police officers in different parts of the country hold different views. No doubt, they have expressed them. There is no reason why they should have a single united view on every detail. My hon. Friend is correct.
I see the firearms proposals not as isolated measures or as something that should be rushed through as a hasty


response to days of intense grief and anger. Over recent months since the election, in several policy sectors, we have been planning a substantial strengthening of the citizen's defences against violence.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was waiting for an appropriate moment to intervene. The Home Secretary is asking for suggestions. Why not look at Northern Ireland? As he well knows, in Northern Ireland there are different gun laws, different rules about the holding of guns at home, and different rules about police inspections. Political murders in Northern Ireland are not committed with such guns but with a small number of guns that move from place to place. The House supported the changes that were made about 10 years ago. It is worth looking at Northern Ireland where the problem is greater.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was certainly not trying to wreck my peroration but was trying to bring in a genuine point. We are looking at the Northern Ireland experience.
I wish to put the subject into the general context of planning the substantial strengthening of the citizen's defences against violence. The new Bill will be a crucial part of that process. I hope that, when the House examines it, its purpose and main provisions will have overwhelming support. Clear thought and firm action have to go together on the matter. Both are needed in the matter, and we shall supply plenty of both.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): I am one of the rare members of the shooting fraternity on the Opposition side. As a legitimate target shooter, I realise that the existing firearms legislation when enforced works well. Ryan acted illegally when he carried his weapons around the streets. Perhaps we should ask why he was not stopped long before he performed his dreadful deeds.
It would be impossible to legislate against Kalashnikovstyle weapons. The action in such weapons is used in many forms of firearms and in many forms of sport. It is used in the most popular pistol shooting weapon in international competition, in which the United Kingdom does extremely well. I am sure that the Home Secretary knows that the United Kingdom has won many gold medals for the sporting use of firearms. As a responsible shooter, I realise that the House owes it to the public to take into account the fact that shotguns do not come under firearms legislation. I cannot see how bringing in pump action, automatic and semi-automatic shotguns under firearms category one legislation is' responsible when, at the moment, thousands of other shotguns do not come under any legislation and there seems to be no intention for them to do so. I am certain that the responsible shotgun lobby would be quite happy for them to be brought under firearms legislation.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I welcome the debate. I hope that I shall be forgiven if my remarks are couched with the town of Hungerford uppermost in my mind. Hungerford is in my constituency, and I was there on the afternoon of 19 August. Nobody who was in the town on that day will ever forget the events that took place. Until that day, nobody thought that one man could have the will or the firepower to massacre so many people

—a massacre the like of which has not been seen in any other part of the United Kingdom. But it happened, and one must recognise that a watershed was reached as a result of that dreadful tragedy. The debate is only one result of the killings. Sixteen people were shot dead, another 14 were wounded, and then, of course, Ryan shot himself.
I said a moment ago that I thought that the Hungerford tragedy was a watershed in the history of our country, at least in terms of killing with weapons. That is true and it might be said to be an endorsement of the view that our firearms laws were, up to that date, adequate, as we always believed them to be. They are said to be the most restrictive in western Europe. However, after 19 August 1987 we have to recognise that they are wanting and I shall suggest to the House one or two ways in which they could he improved.
I appreciated the visits by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary so soon after the tragedy. They saw the aftermath of the massacre. I welcome the fact that immediately after their visits they promised to conduct the review already in hand at a greater pace than might have been the case if Hungerford had not happened.
I digress to put on record how splendidly the police, fire brigade and ambulance services met the emergency at the time of the crisis and how subsequently the social services and voluntary organisations in Berkshire and Hungerford came to the help of the bereaved and injured.
We are fortunate in the man who is now mayor of Hungerford, because he brought a cool leadership to the town at a time of great difficulty for it and its citizens. That cool leadership has helped to bring back the town to something like normality. But, of course, the private grieving will continue for a long time. I am grateful to the trustees for the way in which they have handled the appeal fund and to all those people throughout the country who contributed so generously. The appeal fund now stands at £1 million. That is a remarkable tribute to the generosity of the British people towards a small town facing a massive tragedy.
The Hungerford tragedy invoked a wide range of reactions. It resulted in calls for a ban on all firearms and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), shouts of protest from the shooting lobby that their sport, the third most popular in Britain after fishing and golf, has been pilloried because of the actions of one deranged man. I admit to no more than a passing interest in shooting but if I had an interest I have no.doubt that I should feel the same and make my own protest. That is why the Home Secretary was correct when he said, soon after the tragedy, that in any review of the firearms laws a balance should be struck between carrying out his responsibility to ensure that society is properly protected and enabling shooters to enjoy their sport.
Immediately following the shootings, I was asked what step I thought should be taken to ensure that such an event could not happen again. I listed four suggestions. The first was that nobody should be allowed to possess a semiautomatic rifle at home—as Ryan had and had used in so many of the killings, replacing one spent magazine with another as he went his terrible way. The second was that the number of firearms held at home should be limited. Ryan had five. The third was that ammunition held at home should be limited. Ryan fired over 100 rounds.


Fourthly, I suggested that shooting clubs should become places with a secure armoury where weapons should be kept.
Some hon. Members will be disappointed that the Home Secretary did not say something about shooting clubs. We expect gun shops to be secure places from which weapons cannot be easily stolen. I do not see why we should not expect that, when guns are sold, they are kept in an equally secure place.
I read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Police Superintendents Association in September when he said that he intended to prohibit high-powered self-loading rifles. He repeated that promise this afternoon. I welcome everything that he said about high-powered self-loading rifles, burst fire weapons and short-barrelled smooth-bore guns. I also welcome his announcement that other pump action and self-loading shotguns with a greater than average fire capability are to be put on a par with firearms for certification.
I also welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement about another amnesty, but in conversation with a person involved in the last amnesty—an armourer at Weedon—I was surprised, as I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will he, to be told that all the weapons handed in were subsequently sold back to the gun trade. If that was so, what is the use of an amnesty? Surely the idea of an amnesty is that weapons are taken out of circulation. If someone hands in an antique pistol only to find that subsequently it is passed back to the trade and a profit is made out of it, I can see no real gain. I hope that at the next amnesty we will be sure that weapons handed in are not recirculated.
I am left with my suggestions for limiting the number of firearms, the quantity of ammunition that may be held at home and the role of gun clubs, of which there are 8,000 in this country.
I think that I am right in stating that membership of a gun club is one of the first requirements for the granting of a firearms certificate in nearly all cases. If that is so, it suggests that gun club membership confers a status on those seeking weapons that they would not have without such membership. If the gun club has that status and importance in the eyes of the police, why do so few rules apply to their establishment? For instance, they are not required to have secure premises, a range or other shooting facilities. I am told that anybody can start a gun club, just as anybody can join without being asked to show his or her proficiency or being required to undergo any training. I cannot help feeling that new regulations should be introduced.
If we are to have an overhaul of existing gun laws, gun clubs should be brought within the remit of the review. Gun club premises should be seen to be important in terms of whether a person has the right to possess a weapon. If clubs had secure armouries, it would not be an imposition to insist that only one firearm could be held in a safe place at home and that additional weapons should be held at the club. The same could apply to ammunition.
The firearms certificate—which should also apply to shotguns — should have a photograph of the owner attached to establish absolute identity. Ammunition and ammunition-making equipment should never be sold to a person who does not have a certificate bearing a photograph. The same should apply to shotgun owners.

Establishing who has guns and who has not turns to some extent on whether we believe that one certificate with a number of guns printed on it is adequate or whether separate certificates for each weapon should be required. I do not have strong views either way, but I believe that a national gun register, rather as our cars are held on a national computer, would enable the police to keep a check on who owns which weapons, and in particular, when guns are sold, to know to whom they are being sold. That would be a step towards giving the police additional powers and controls which I suspect they want. There is much to be said for constabularies creating firearms squads to specialise in gun control, which I believe applies to Sussex.
If there is to be really effective firearms control, we also have to find a way of stopping the huge illegal trade in arms, which is now of frightening proportions. My remarks have concentrated on the Hungerford massacre because the killings were carried out by one man in legal possession of all his weapons. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, no law could have prevented some part of the tragedy because it is not guns which kill people, but people firing the guns. Nevertheless, if Michael Ryan had possessed only one weapon and a limited amount of ammunition, and if that weapon had not been semi-automatic, I have no doubt that most of his victims would be alive today. That is why some improvements to our firearms laws are now so necessary.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Like many hon. Members who have called for greater control over firearms since the Hungerford massacre, my postbag has been full of letters from the gun lobby and from sports enthusiasts protesting vigorously about the proposed changes in firearms regulations. When considering the issue of gun control, the recreational use of firearms should be secondary to the need for greater public safety. Although civil liberties implications arise from greater gun control, these should be considered subsidiary to ensuring that the public are adequately protected.
We have seen in the United States of America how the enshrinement in the constitution of the right to carry guns has led to havoc in some states. In California people have started shooting each other in traffic jams, and in one month there were nine such deaths. I am not suggesting for a moment that we are approaching that situation here, but unless we do something now to curb the use of firearms we will have to face the consequences and hold ourselves responsible for future deaths.
I accept that the Hungerford massacre probably would have happened to some limited degree whatever the circumstances. We cannot prevent someone running amok, but we can restrict the amount of damage that he or she does. It is clear that the type of weaponry and ammunition that Ryan had led to far more deaths than would have been the case had he been restricted.
We have learnt nothing new since the Hungerford and Bristol incidents. Many people were calling for greater control of firearms before those incidents, but they have focused our minds on the problem. We should be considering that problem now and passing the necessary legislation to tackle it, not with knee-jerk reactions, but with carefully thought out proposals that will stand the


test of time and prevent deaths. I am therefore pleased that this debate has been called today, and I endorse the call for some urgency in reaching conclusions.
I assure the Home Secretary that we will support the following measures in any legislation that is brought before the House. The first is a ban on the private sale and use of all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. As I have said, what many of us found particularly shocking about Hungerford was the scale of havoc and the number of deaths that one man could cause in one day by going over the brink. He had access to what many of us would consider to be a weapon of war rather than a weapon for recreational use. I am sure that I am not alone in not knowing before that incident that such weapons were lawfully possessed by citizens of this country.
It is clear that had Ryan had access only to a shotgun instead of a Kalashnikov rifle the death toll would have been much smaller, and instead of hundreds of bullets being fired, probably no more than 25 would have been fired before he was stopped. Therefore, the banning of what are clearly war weapons and weapons that have other than recreational use must be a first priority.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Lady is giving the impression that the choice available to Michael Ryan at Hungerford was either a Kalashnikov or a shotgun. However, a range of weaponry between those two will not be affected by the Home Secretary's proposals. It would have been quite conceivable for Michael Ryan to roam the streets of Hungerford using a sporting rifle or any of the bolt action rifles which are freely available and which will not be affected by the Home Secretary's proposals. He could have wreaked his havoc using those weapons that have the same fire power, velocity and magazine capacity, except that they are bolt action instead of semi-automatic. Why, therefore, does the hon. Lady think that the banning of semi-automatic weapons would in any way have prevented what happened at Hungerford?

Mrs. Barnes: I accept that many weapons would have wreaked considerable havoc, and I endorse the suggestion that all weapons should be looked at carefully for potential inclusion in the restriction of firearms.
We should also look closely at tightening the procedures for licensing firearms. In common with the proposers of the motion, I find it ridiculous that firearms owners should be required to have only one certificate for any number of firearms. Each gun should be subject to a certificate, and only the person obtaining that certificate should he allowed to use that gun. In issuing that first certificate, the police must be very sure that the person who was given the licence is fit to be in charge of a firearm and that he has a genuine need to be in possession of it.
The police should also make detailed inquiries into how and where that weapon and ammunition will be stored. In particular, it would seem sensible to have the firearm and ammunition stored separately. The police must also be particularly vigilant when they issue individual firearm licences for further guns. The applicants should provide the police with very clear evidence and reasons why they need those additional guns. Spot checks by police on how existing firearms are used and stored before issuing additional certificates might be a further way of ensuring that firearms are issued only to people fit to possess them.
Thirdly, the Home Secretary should consider a further point about the storage of firearms. It is clear that there

are many categories of guns, especially those used for sporting purposes, that do not need to be stored in the home. I suggest that they be stored in the club concerned, under very safe conditions. Any sporting gun owner would then have to have very good reasons for storing his gun at home.
Finally, let me refer to a matter which has already been touched on today, but which I feel needs more attention— how violence in the media, and particularly on television, affects attitudes towards guns. Obviously this does not have the immediate effect of some of the legislation that we are considering, but it could be of critical importance to what is likely to be happening in 20 or 30 years' time. Programmes that children and teenagers love, such as "The A Team", which many of us consider perfectly innocent, show ordinary citizens holding guns and using them regularly. They illustrate very poorly what actually happens when those guns are fired. My two and a half year old son is convinced that people go, "Bang, bang", lie down for 10 minutes and then get up again. Children are growing up thinking that the use of guns is easy and acceptable, and that their use sorts out problems. They do not consider the consequences.
I suggest that a Royal Commission he appointed to consider violence in the media and to examine its effects on the minds of children and on the future of this country. Hon. Members may scoff, but we are considering attitudes, not just the control of weaponry. We are considering the mentality of the people who use that weaponry. We must not disregard the implications of what may be happening. I am not presupposing that we will find strong effects. I merely suggest that we should consider the matter very carefully and come to conclusions that are based on empirical evidence, not on prejudice.

Mr. Rob Hayward: I speak as the Member in whose constituency most of the recent Bristol tragedies took place. I know that the matter is currently sub judice, and that I therefore cannot comment on the events involved. However, it is significant that, although four people tragically lost their lives, the events in Bristol — following, as they did, those in Hungerford — seem almost to have been missed. Let me merely join my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) in congratulating the police and fire services on their speedy and well-co-ordinated action on the day of the tragic incidents in Bristol. It was greatly appreciated by my constituents.
Let me say as an aside that I should like the Home Office to consider holding discussions with the media about the handling of such events. My constituents suffered substantial pressure, in some instances emotional, from members of the media attempting to establish facts, family contacts and so forth. I realise that the media have a duty to perform in such circumstances, but they must recognise the pressures faced by ordinary individuals when such tragic events take place.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I broadly welcome the Government's proposals as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 September. However, I do not believe that — as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seems to have inferred —such proposals can be introduced at the drop of a hat, or that they will solve all the problems. Rash and fast legislation is usually bad


legislation — and bad legislation provides opportunities for the criminal element and others who wish to circumvent the law to do so. While I should like the legislation to be on the statute book as soon as possible, I consider it unrealistic for the Opposition Front Bench to propose such timetables.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook seems to have inferred that the only people interested in shooting are members of the upper class. That represents a complete misunderstanding of ordinary people. As has already been said, shooting is the third most popular sport in this country. Since the events in Bristol and in Hungerford, I have been staggered to discover how many of my constituents own guns — and I do not represent one of the great shire counties. I have checked some facts. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not present, I shall make a comparison only between my constituency and that of Dewsbury, which I think may be relevant.
According to figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, my constituency is 40 per cent. middle class and Dewsbury 43 per cent. Fifteen per cent of Dewsbury's constituents are professional and managerial people, while the figure in my constituency is 11 per cent. My constituency, therefore, is substantially more ordinary and working class than Dewsbury. But my constituency contains large numbers of gun holders, the vast majority of whom are gravely concerned about the events in Bristol and Hungerford, and want correct and reasonable restrictions to be imposed on those who carry and use guns.
I suggest that, first, there should be stronger requirements for securing guns held in the home. I do not consider it realistic to require that all guns should be held by gun clubs in club houses. That would make them all too easy a target for the IRA and similar terrorist groups, and would be to the long-term disadvantage of the community, because—as has been pointed out—many such clubs are in remote places. It would be far too easy to break into them over a long period, however much security was installed.
The clarification of section 19 of the Firearms Act is important, and it would be worthwhile for it to be re-emphasised during the passage of any future firearms Bill.
I consider that the most suitable way of certifying all guns held would be to place a record of all the guns held by an individual to whom a certificate is granted on that certificate. I do not go along with the suggestion that there should be separate certificates, because, given the scale of gun-holding in this country, the administrative burden imposed on the police would be substantial.

Mr. Sayeed: It is obvious from what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that he is keen to ensure that guns held privately, including shotguns, are held rather more securely than they are at present, to make it more difficult to remove a gun from a house when a theft takes place. Does my hon. Friend agree that at present it is far too easy for a gun to be stolen, whether or not it is securely held, and for the owner not to report it? Requiring the number to be put on a certificate, as my hon. Friend suggests, would force the owner of a shotgun to report the theft, and there would be more effective control against the stolen weapon entering the illegal market.

Mr. Hayward: I agree. The aim of my proposal is to make a more accurate record of the possession and transmission of guns from one individual to another. The obligation on those who lose guns to report the loss would be that much greater, whether they lose them by accident or through theft.
Let me touch on the question of accidental loss. It is all too easy to lose guns in transportation. Most of the comments made so far have concerned the storage of guns at home, but inevitably they will be transported from an individual's home to the place where they are to be fired.
When transporting guns, most people seem to be somewhat carefree, flinging them on to the back seat of their cars, in the back of their Land-Rovers and in unlocked boots. There should be an obligation on an individual to store and transport guns sensibly and securely.
One of the other matters that has concerned many people during the tragic events of this summer has been the large number of rounds available, and not only in the case of pump action guns. Ordinary individuals appear to carry large numbers of rounds with them. I do not have an easy solution to put forward regarding how many rounds it is appropriate for a person to store at home, but the Home Office should consider this matter carefully when preparing legislation.
As a result of the events in Bristol only a few weeks ago, I have taken an interest in the magazines that are on sale in W H Smith and other general newsagents. I have been amazed by the style of advertisements and photographs that appear to be acceptable in what I would describe as ordinary shooting magazines. There must be some connection between the appeal of these advertisements and the response they provoke from readers. We should consider carefully whether such reputable organisations and companies — we must presume that dealers who advertise in these magazines are reputable — should put in such advertisements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) mentioned re-purchase. If prohibition is substantially extended, it will inevitably include some weapons which represent a fairly substantial level of expenditure for relatively low income earners who enjoy shooting. If prohibition is extended without any offer of re-purchase, there will inevitably be a tendency for people not to hand in weapons. There is, therefore, a danger that such people will sell illegally and that more weapons will be available to the criminal element in society. I recognise that there are difficulties of principle in this respect, but this point should be carefully considered.
During the summer we have seen a number of tragic incidents in different parts of the country. My own constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury have been harshly affected. I hope that the tragedies that we have witnessed recently will result in a sensible revision of the law, but not an over-hasty revision in an attempt to appease certain groups of people, because that would produce bad legislation.

Mr. David Young: Everyone was shocked by the tragedy at Hungerford and I believe that the House wants to extend its sympathy to the people who suffered. I know that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will take back to his constituency the concern and sympathy of both sides of the House.
We are not considering whether legislation could stop a Hungerford incident recurring, but we as a society must look carefully at the escalating crime wave and the availability of modern weapons technology. As legislators, we must ask, not only why Ryan was holding an automatic or a semi-automatic gun in his home, but why the Home Office was not asked to explain why our laws allowed that to happen, without prior feedback. We have to consider whether the legislation is working properly. It is difficult to obtain statistics about the entry of weapons into this country from the continent for illegal, criminal purposes. I am not anti-gun; I am a member of the House of Commons gun club, where I practise target shooting. I do not kill animals or people. There have been recent tragic incidents not only in Hungerford and Bristol, but in America and Australia. As legislators, we have to consider the wider aspects of this problem.
Shotguns are the firearms used in most criminal activities, but I do not suppose that it makes much difference whether one is shot at close range by an automatic gun or a shotgun. Even as a member of the House of Commons gun club, I would not dream of keeping a weapon in my home. We are asking the police to supervise the holding of guns. The crime wave is escalating. Two-thirds of all crimes are not solved and the criminals are not brought to book. We must, therefore, address the problem of weapons being stolen in burglaries from the homes of legitimate users of guns. If a choice has to be made between sporting or other interests and the needs of society, the latter must predominate. Certain magazines glorify the use of weapons not for the protection of man but as a way of dominating his fellows. Survival clubs flourish in America, where people learn to use these weapons against their fellows.
It is no use closing the door after the horse has bolted. Our legislation must be sufficiently modern and flexible to counter the escalating crime wave. The Hungerford tragedy was the result of a deranged mind, but that is all the more reason for society to be vigilant. If somebody is killed, however much we legislate we cannot bring him back to life.
We should consider carefully the Northern Ireland experience. We should be much more strict about the number and the type of weapons that can be held. We should also examine more closely the credentials of those who say that they are gun dealers. Furthermore, these weapons should be held in much more secure places and not private homes. If I drive a vehicle I am expected to take out insurance and be responsible for its use. Such an element of responsibility must also fall on the gun holder.
The House must face up to this issue. The Labour party did little about it when it was in power, and I doubt whether the Government would have done much had it not been for Hungerford. The Hungerford incident is a lesson that will remain with us. I hope that, as representatives of the British electorate, we will see what can be done to save any repetition of that incident by fore thought and not hind thought.

Sir John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) will forgive me if I do not exactly follow his line of argument, although I agree with much of what he said.
I am sure that the House shares the distress of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)

over the Hungerford incident. My hon. Friend put the matter eloquently, and as we listened it was apparent to us all that he has been deeply touched by the events there. I urge my hon. Friend, whom I have known for a long time, to recognise that Michael Ryan was a one-off case and that he went berserk.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) referred to people going off the rails. Michael Ryan went berserk. If he had not had access to a Kalashnikov. he might have seized a bus or lorry and run into a queue of people and killed as many in that way. One must not overreact to the fact that this this weapon was available. It was available in an exceptional circumstance, and to an exceptional person who, if a Kalashnikov had not been available, would have found some other way of venting his spite on society.
I support the measures which the Home Secretary announced he was thinking of taking when speaking to the Association of Chief Police Officers on 22 September. It is obvious that any Home Secretary has to do something. Public feeling is very deep on this issue; it is not confined to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. The country was shattered by the offences at Hungerford; my right hon. Friend had to do more than make a gesture to quieten public opinion. The delicate balance that my right hon. Friend achieved in his speech on 22 September was about right; it would have been unthinkable for him to have done nothing. A good and sensible Home Secretary would not have bowed to the immediate pressures from the people of Hungerford, the Association of Chief Police Officers or from public opinion and introduced stringent and intransigent measures. As Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend has a very delicate job. Those who are concerned with shooting, as are several of my hon. Friends, realise that these measures will have a great effect on future civilian weapon possession.
I am sure that the House is united on the Home Secretary's proposal to ban the Kalashnikov rifle completely. Many chief officers of police would not have licensed such a weapon in the first place. A failure of the Firearms Act 1968 was the excessive latitude that it gave to chief officers. The chief officer for the Hungerford area considered it proper and right to give a civilian the right to use a Kalashnikov and other repeating weapons, yet many other chief officers of police, to my certain knowledge, would have been very loath, even under the existing regulations, to have issued such a licence. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proposing that such weapons should no longer be available and that they are not needed in a civilian society.

Mr. Ron Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Kalashnikov weapon, has been available and held in private hands for about 40 years?

Sir John Farr: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's research is 100 per cent. correct. He will probably discover that after further consideration his statement is incorrect.
I support my right hon. Friend's banning of all burst fire weapons and short-barrelled smooth-bore guns, thus bringing them within a prohibited category. In a peaceful society there is no justification for an individual's possession of such weapons.
There has been a great outcry with regard to my right hon. Friend's third proposal. It is suggested that pump action and other self-loading shotguns be brought under


the same control that currently exists for rifles and pistols. That is the very least that my right hon. Friend could have done. The outcry has come from people who possess such weapons. They say that this proposal is desperately unfair and that proper compensation will not be forthcoming for those who have to forfeit their weapons. My right hon. Friend is not banning such weapons; he is saying that exceptionally good grounds will have to exist for their purchase and continued possession. Rightly, he intends to include them in the section 1 certificate. In this proposal he is saying that anybody who has an ordinary shotgun certificate will be unable to obtain special weapons, with the special capacities that they have. Those people have to be approved through the more stringent section 1 procedures and they will then be allowed to keep them. It may be that tens of thousands of people who currently hold such weapons will pass the necessarily stringent test to allow them to continue possessing them under the section 1 procedure. I agree with my right hon. Friend on the point about military and other weapons that can be converted.
The final point that I should like to make relates to my right hon. Friend's proposals with regard to raising the maximum penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime to life imprisonment. I am sure that the House agrees that the penalty for carrying firearms in the furtherance of crime should carry a life sentence. I understand that that measure will be enacted in the Criminal Justice Bill, but I have, as always, a lingering doubt that if a man is apprehended carrying a weapon, even though he has no intention of using it, will receive a sentence of life imprisonment as well. I am not sure that the House is right in saying that if a man carries a weapon without the intention of using it he should still receive the same life sentence. I am not sure that that is the deterrent that the House would wish it to be.
I fully agree with the approach that is outlined on the Order Paper. What the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) suggested about the listing of all shotguns on an individual certificate would be difficult to implement because, as I tried to point out in an intervention, many shotguns do not have serial numbers. If the right hon. Gentleman asks the Birmingham gunmakers about this point I am sure that they will agree that one cannot diestamp on to an ancient but perfectly sound weapon without completely destroying it.
The proposal of the hon. Member for Sparkbrook for a separate certificate for each weapon would cause a tremendous amount of book-work, even if it was worth it. Is he aware that about six million shotguns are in legal circulation today? He may say that he will see that five million of them are taken out of circulation but he should tell the House. The police computer centre, which would administer a system such as that, would break down and the cost of the proposal would be out of proportion.
I have mentioned compensation. I feel that that matter should not affect the Government too much because the market will cope. It may be that many of the weapons held now on a shotgun certificate will continue to be held on a more stringent section 1 certificate and that the number of weapons for disposal will not choke up the demand.
I have been closely associated with the Palace of Westminster rifle club for many years. It is open at any

time for inspection on the range. It is just a few yards away and many hon. Members and members of staff spend a lot of time there. We are proud of our security and the way in which our weapons are held. We are also proud of the armoury and of the personal supervision provided by instructors at all times.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that entirely endorses my point about gun clubs? If we can have that sort of security in our gun club in the Palace of Westminster, why should we expect anything less than that in other gun clubs throughout the country?

Sir John Farr: My hon. Friend is right. Without being too naive, we try to set an example. That example is the very least one should expect in any of the many gun clubs in the country. The Palace range is inspected and licensed by Home Office inspectors and its use is restricted entirely to rifles.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. I hope that he will press on with his approach which, as I said, is the right one. It is delicately balanced and sensible. We must not go overboard because of the events at Hungerford and Bristol, both of which were tragedies. We have to remember that a recent survey done by The Times showed that the firearms laws in Britain are generally much more stringent than in our European neighbours. We must bear that in mind. We have a strict system now and, by and large, it works well. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his amendment today.

Mr. Pat Wall: This debate arises primarily out of the tremendous horror of the Hungerford massacre. The people of Bradford—I represent one of the Bradford constituencies—have a close affinity with the people of Hungerford because the Hungerford tragedy took place some two years after ours. It involved massive loss of life and injury to citizens. There was enormous sympathy for Hungerford from the people of Bradford, and our local authority sent to Hungerford staff with tremendous skills and knowledge arising out of their experience of the terrible fire at Valley Parade football ground.
The debate takes place in relation to Hungerford but is coloured by the events in Bristol, the shooting of a bailiff and young solicitor or solicitor's clerk in Wolverhampton and the terrible mass killings of a similar nature to Hungerford that have taken place in America and Australia. I recall watching one of a series of films about a hospital in south Chicago where the biggest cause of termination of pregnancy was gunshot wounds. That is the mirror of a society where guns are widely available. That is what it means in terms of social cost. I agree with so many people who have spoken today. There is no justification for automatic or semi-automatic guns to be available.
I have spoken about Bradford and Hungerford, but I recall the other side of the issue. The day of the Bradford disaster had been a day of enormous celebration with the promotion of the football team from the third division to the second. I can recall as a young boy the pleasure I got from being taken by my father to the local home guard rifle club to shoot on a 25-yard range with a ·22 rifle. I had one enormous disadvantage in that I am totally incapable of winking with my left eye, and I had to wear a patch. My


excuse is that I gave up range shooting when Moshe Dayan and his patch became so popular, and I took up clay pigeon shooting. I have no axe to grind with people's legitimate right to participate and enjoy sport in that way.
I enjoyed clay pigeon shooting with ordinary working people in my community on a Sunday morning at a simulated game shoot. However, I do not think that the right of people to engage in sport can avoid the fact that we live in a climate and at a time of growing violence, not only gun violence but violence in general. The number of offences involving firearms has increased four and a half times since 1972. It is true that that increase is concerned largely with damage to property because those figures show damage which exceeds £20. However, there is a growing use of pistols, shotguns and more sophisticated weapons in relation to crime. Therefore, the licensing of shotguns and the keeping of a register is a perfectly legitimate and reasonable request to make and it should be done on the basis of individuals.
I have one slight criticism of the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the grounds for my criticism arise from a general misunderstanding of the mail order business. I worked for three of the five big mail order companies in this country. Two of those five are among the largest employers in Bradford. I have noticed in debates in the House that when the mail order industry is debated it is assumed that the little advertisements one sees in various journals, often for the most dubious of products, are part of the mail order industry. The industry involves large companies. Two of the companies for which I worked sell shotguns. They sell them on an entirely responsible basis. The customer has to supply a shotgun certificate which is checked with the police before a gun is issued.
I also agree with the system of registration. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the class point of view. I can see no reason why the farm labourers and garage mechanics with whom I first went shooting should not use the traditional means of paying for a shotgun over a period of weeks or months in the same way as a more wealthy person can buy a pair of matching guns at one of the better London shops.
I end on this note. Violence is not divorced from society. One cannot draw general conclusions from an aberration such as the Hungerford disaster, but nor can one ignore the fact that we live in an increasingly divisive society. The factors that trigger off people with mental weaknesses are precisely the conflicts and tensions which arise primarily from the gross inequalities in our society — the poverty of so many people compared with the increasing and flaunted wealth of a minority. Those tensions have an effect on the use of knives and guns and on crime statistics generally. If we are to tackle violence of all kinds in our society we must have a social programme to deal with inequality, scarcity and poverty.
Personally, I also oppose the growing use of weapons of violence by the forces of the state. Perhaps a more restrictive attitude to the use of weapons in society generally will mean less use of firearms by the police and other forces of the state. The House should not forget the deaths of John Shorthouse and Gail Kitchen, two innocent children killed by police using firearms in the course of their duty. We therefore have a duty to deal with firearms in relation not just to the public but to the state.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) spoke movingly of the tragedies in their constituencies this year and we all appreciate the part that they played in helping their constituents.
I should say at the outset that I resent the phrase "gun lobby" being bandied about in the media as it implies a wild west, couldn't-care-less attitude to weapons and shooting which is far from the truth. Those to whom I shall refer are members of properly constituted and affiliated rifle clubs, pistol clubs and clay pigeon clubs. They are highly responsible people who look after their ranges, whether they be 25 yd indoor ranges or open ranges, and we should give credit to them for the recreation that they provide. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had to react to the Hungerford tragedy. The law needs to be simplified, strengthened and amended, but he should not overreact. That is the burden of my remarks today. The traditional shooter for sport and recreation has a right to continue, and we should not make life too difficult in that respect.
I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I am disappointed at the amount of consultation so far. I am an office-bearer in the National Small-bore Rifle Association. the National Rifle Association, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association and the British Shooting Sports Council. I know that the latter, which represents all the sports in negotiations with the Home Office, has been in consultation on administrative changes and important matters of security. Immediately after the Hungerford tragedy, my noble Friend Lord Swansea wrote expressing grave concern and offering his services for immediate consultations, but I am sorry to say that no consultation took place before my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his important announcement on 22 September. Had there been such consultation, I believe that some of the difficulties could have been ironed out before that announcement.
I warmly accept some of the points made by my right hon. Friend in relation to burst fire weapons, increased penalties and security matters, but any proposals must be practical and effective. So far, no one has mentioned the police manpower required to carry out the recommendations. We know how much administrative work the police carry out to implement the existing system of firearms and shotgun certificates. If the system is to be stepped up, I wonder how this will be achieved. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be flexible in thought and deed between now and the presentation of a Bill to Parliament. Like other hon. Members, I would rather the Government took a little longer than that they rushed something out by the end of the year.
Technical changes will also have to be borne in mind as weapons are constantly evolving and we must be able to adapt quickly to changes as they occur, including changes in international competitive shooting rules. The Minister will receive a very supportive response from the shooting world provided that he recognises the legitimate right to use firearms for sport and recreation. I cannot accept the views of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) or of the SDP. I therefore have no difficulty in opposing the motion and


supporting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I welcome the announcement of 22 September, although I believe that one or two points require amendment.
A critical issue concerns self-loading and pump action firearms. Kalashnikov-type weapons must clearly be kept out of the hands of ordinary people interested in firearms, but the Government must listen to the arguments in relation to ·222, ·243 and ·275 stalking rifles. Many stalkers feel that these are the most effective, especially when limited to a magazine of four or five rounds. For humane reasons alone, if one wounds a beast, one needs to be able to fire a second round quickly and there is nothing wrong with the use of self-action small-bore rifles for sporting purposes.
With regard to shotguns, I hope that my right hon. Friend appreciates the position of those who rightly use self-loading shotguns for clay pigeon shooting. Only two rounds are used and it may ultimately be necessary to ensure that manufacturers produce shotguns able to fire only two rounds. At present, however, the majority have a capacity of four or five rounds, although they may be adapted to fire only two. If the total of perhaps 200,000 such weapons is to be covered for the purpose of firearms certificates, there will be an enormous burden on the police in terms of inspection and administrative detail.
It is important to appreciate that a firearm certificate now costs £33 whereas 20 years ago it cost 5s. Moreover, variations cost £19. Any change of weapon, which is quite frequent in competition shooting, would mean a fee of £19 plus police inspection. That seems to me to be setting up a bureaucracy of incredible proportions relative to the practical results that we seek to achieve. I hope that the Government will think very carefully about that aspect.
Some people in the countryside use self-loading shotguns on pests and vermin. That is quite legal and they have perhaps five shots at their disposal. In relation to game and wild fowl, however, the Wildlife and Countryside Act limits them to three shots. All these matters must be taken into account when legislation is drafted between now and the new year, as I hope will be the case. In my view, to try to achieve this before Christmas is asking too much.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also look very carefully at perhaps the most complicated area concerning security. We have the 1969 firearms rules. Rule No. 11, says that when firearms are "not in actual use", they must be "in a secure place." That is the critical issue. What is a secure place?
At the moment there is an enormous difference in police interpretation of that point, Some people have been prosecuted and convicted for not having their rifle or ammunition in a secure place when they are locked in the boot of their car. How is one to take a rifle from home to Bisley, for example, or the nearest indoor range, without taking it in one's car? One must be practical about this matter. If one has a long journey, one is entitled to fill up the car with petrol or have a cup of coffee. The police must accept the good will of the shooting population and realise that what seems to be nitpicking does not help to achieve what we want with regard to security.
Of course, we must have security in the home. It is crucial. The British Shooting Sports Council has been keen to ensure that. However, we must remove the controversial issues for which there has been legislation in the past two

or three years, which have caused heart burning in the shooting world and perhaps have not helped towards security.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I share many of my hon. Friend's feelings, although, as he will appreciate, I find myself on both sides of the divide. Does he believe that shooters would accept that the corollary of the requirement for safer keeping is that the police would need to have access to the premises of individual citizens and gun clubs, to ensure that the safe-keeping rule was being respected?

Sir Hector Monro: Indeed. I welcome the police coming to look at my safe keeping — I shall not say what it is —whenever I renew my firearms certificate. I do not see why that should not be extended to shotgun certificates. However, doing so would mean an enormously increased administrative burden on the police. It is all very well dealing with a few hundred thousand firearms certificates, but if there are to be over 1 million shotgun certificates. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Wales will realise what we are asking the police to do. If there is to be greater security in the home, inspection becomes almost inevitable.
I hope that we shall look carefully at specialist disciplines in the world of shooting such as muzzle loaders and flintlocks. Obviously, no criminal will set out with a muzzle loader or flintlock for use in crime. Therefore, the regulations must get round that specialist shooting interest.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will mention compensation for those who will have to surrender weapons which at present are legal and which they bought when they were legal. I hope that when the amnesty, which one supports, is held my hon. Friend will bear it in mind that, rightly or wrongly, there are several good historic weapons in people's possession, which I know they should not have. There should be some way in which those weapons could be disposed of through the gun trade so that we do not lose them any more than other works of art and so that they are not just broken up. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for selling them through the gun trade. Thereafter they would be registered. It has been said that it would not matter if they came into circulation. They would not necessarily come into circulation, but at least they would be registered and the police would know where they were.
I support the view that there should be a photograph on a firearms certificate. When a certificate is presented for the purchase of ammunition or a rifle, the dealer does not know whether the person who presents the certificate is the person to whom it refers.
We want careful control of firearms. I hope that in the legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promotes he will do all that he can to ensure that sport and recreational shooting continue with as little hindrance as possible. As a nation, we have a tremendous record for marksmanship in the Olympic games, the Commonwealth games and international competition and it would be a pity if through thoughtless and over-hasty legislation that pleasure and recreation were removed from the sportsmen and the thousands who go to the countryside to enjoy shooting. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will think carefully and consult in great detail the BSSC and other interested bodies before he introduces legislation.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: As someone who lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) for many years and who was his political opponent for a few of those years, I should like to associate myself with his remarks about the tragedy at Hungerford and the way in which the local people rallied to support the victims of that crime.
I should also like to associate myself with some of the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman, strange as it may seem. because I, too, draw a parallel between owning a car and owning a gun. We recognise that a car can be a lethal weapon. There are many reasons why it should be registered and its ownership known. Despite what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said about the cost of such a scheme, I believe that people who want legitimately to use firearms of any sort should be prepared to have that done in the same way. That means that every gun should be registered by a separate licence. It is worth reflecting that if Michael Ryan had had to make a subsequent application for every firearm that he came to own, the examination of his mental health might have prevented the additional licensing of any additional weapon after he first acquired one.
No ammunition should be permitted to be made available or sold to anyone who cannot produce such a licence and give a legitimate reason why ammunition is needed for that weapon system. Therefore, I am pleased at the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put forward our plans and requests to the Home Secretary to amend the proposed legislation in the ways that he suggested.
My constituents of Lewisham, Deptford, an inner-city area, are concerned that there should be a restriction on all dangerous weapons, not just those classed as firearms, because in my constituency, as in many others, injuries and death resulting from the use of knives are even more substantial than from the use of firearms. I am told that in Lewisham borough a man who was not considered fit to have a licence to sell shotguns or firearms of any sort was subsequently allowed to open a shop selling imitation guns and all forms of martial arts weapons. As we have heard today, many of those weapons are lethal; they can be used to kill people. They should be restricted in the way in which we seek to restrict firearms.
I do not want to go over much of the ground that has been covered in the debate, but I want to mention the related area of concern that cannot be ignored—the cult of violence that has become part of our society. I understand that available alongside those martial arts weapons there are, for example, audio cassettes entitled "Hitler Youth Sings Again". I fail to understand how such material can legitimately be on sale. I wonder whether the House is aware that a recent copy of Gun and Accessories Mart magazine carried on its front page a picture of an AK47 rifle and described it as "The infamous AK47". That appeared after the tragedy of Hungerford. Advertisements in other magazines refer to a knife known as "The Terminator" and another knife of "awesome strength and penetration".
Today the House has noted many things about the availability of weapons, but I believe that one cannot escape from that cult of violence. Another magazine, Combat and Survival, recently carried an article entitled:
Infantry tactics in built-up areas".

Another headline was "Fighting with the GPMG", which I understand is an automatic firearm. All those who would argue for the rights of sports people must address themselves to the issue of the cult of violence and advertising in magazines of that nature.
It has been noted in today's debate that weapons themselves do not cause loss of life or injury; it is the people who use them. It has also been remarked that restricting legislation already exists in this country as compared with other nations, yet there is a rapid rise in crime associated with firearms. While I welcome the proposals for the extension of restrictions in the law, I believe, too, that the House must accept that the problems of the misuse of weapons in this country are due, not only to isolated examples of mental sickness in individuals, but the expression of a deeper ill in our society that emanates from the alienation of so many of our citizens as a result of the divisive social and economic policies of the Government.

Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) will forgive me if I do not pursue her final comments. I want to offer my support to the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, with which I completely agree. I also congratulate him on the action that he has taken since the tragedy of Hungerford to re-examine the issue of the ownership and control of firearms and shotguns in the United Kingdom. I particularly agree with my right hon. Friend's suggestion that a careful and detailed consideration of these matters should be undertaken.
The shooting community in the United Kingdom is composed largely, if not wholly, of responsible citizens who pride themselves on their good citizenship, their interest in guns and their safe use of guns. As a group they are as much the victims of the tragedy of Hungerford as the unfortunate people of that community. We should bear in mind the need to balance the debate about the use and control of firearms and shotguns.
During the debate we have heard calls for different types of certificates, for the inclusion of weapons by number or description on certificates, and for the storage of firearms and shotguns in safe places. However, what will such calls mean? If we are to encourage people to store firearms or shotguns in gun clubs or armouries, what will be the requirements for the security of those premises? An hon. Member referred to what I believe he called a hut to which people went to fire a weapon in target practice. The premises in question might well be suitable for that sort of activity, but if they are to be used for the storage of weapons and ammunition the purpose of those premises will have changed completely, and we need to examine carefully what obligations or requirements we should impose upon those who set themselves up in business, or in association, or in clubs, and may accept responsibility for the storage of firearms, shotguns or ammunition.
There have been calls for a limit on the amount of ammunition that people may hold, but on some estates — this does not apply in my constituency in the centre of London — I am told that those who go shooting might discharge several thousand rounds in the course of a week's shooting. Under those circumstances, what are the implications for the holding and storage of that amount of ammunition? My right hon. Friend is right to


say that a careful analysis of these problems is necessary, because, although we are concerned about the aftermath of the Hungerford tragedy, it would be unwise to create a structure of bureaucracy that was so unwieldy that neither the police nor other authorities could make it work, or to create a Mecca for those who wish to steal firearms or ammunition by having them deposited in clubs in which there is inadequate protection.
Since 1920 we have had strict controls over firearms and shotguns in this country. Those restrictions have served the people of the country extremely well. For 67 years we have not had the like of the Hungerford incident, for which we are all most grateful. That is to be compared with the United States, where, in the 20 years following the murder of President Kennedy, about 210,000 Americans have been killed by firearms. Almost the same number have committed suicide with a gun. Another 50,000 have been killed accidentally by gunfire, and about 180 million privately owned guns are held by people in the United States. Our system of gun control has, for 67 years, prevented that from happening.
Now, we should be trying to prohibit the possession of firearms such as burst or pump action shotguns, which have no place on the sporting field—such as the semiautomatic rifle of the kind that was tragically used at Hungerford. There can be no justification for the private possession of such weapons. At the same time, we should not prohibit the legitimate use by responsible citizens of weapons used for sporting and firearm practice. Whatever arrangements the House finally decides upon, sadly, it cannot and will not, either by prohibition or certification, prevent people from going mad and using firearms, whether the arms in question were lawfully or unlawfully acquired.
We cannot prevent the occasional incident of armed crime. Most professionally organised criminals find no difficulty in obtaining unlawful weapons in the so-called black market, imported from the Republic of Ireland or from other parts of Europe. Such people will continue to have access to such weapons, and we should not deceive ourselves into believing that a more punishing regime for the shooting community will somehow prevent another crime, or the tragedy of Hungerford, because it will not.
That is not to say that my right hon. Friend is wrong to pursue his investigation into the controls that he has announced. He is absolutely right to do so. That forms part of a 67-year tradition of gun control that has served this country and its people well, and that is why I have no hesitation in supporting his amendment tonight.

Mr. Ron Davies: There was something in what the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said, but I have no problem in supporting the motion moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Perhaps the hon. Member for Westminster, North and I should have a discussion later in the Lobby. However, I was broadly sympathetic to his remarks, with the exception of his comment — it has been made by other speakers, too — that there can be no justification for the individual possession of semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns. That is not true. There is a justification, and it is a good one. The use of semi-automatic weapons and

pump action shotguns is common in bona fide, legitimate sports—not only on the shooting field but in the sort of shooting activity that is organised by private shooting clubs on private, licensed ranges throughout the country.
Hitherto, there have been no problems, and the activities in which shooters have involved themselves have been properly controlled. They are properly licensed and supervised by the Ministry of Defence or the Home Office, and, by and large, there have been no problems. When it is said that there can be no justification for the use of such weapons, a challenge is being made to the Home Office, because it has accepted that indviduals have a right to own, use and enjoy weapons such as these. There is a justification for them in sporting terms, and that has been recognised by the Home Office.
There is a problem of two dimensions in the proposals that the Home Secretary will put before Parliament later this year. The first is that all the restrictions that are being mooted will be restrictions on the legal shooting lobby. As I understand it, fewer than 1 per cent. of the weapons that are used in crime or in the furtherance of crime are illegally held. It is not suggested that the 99 per cent. of weapons that are legally owned and used will be subject to prohibition, further restrictions and banning because of the misuse of the I per cent. of weapons that are illegally held by the criminal fraternity. The issue has not been properly grasped.
Secondly, in an intervention I asked the Home Secretary about the events in Hungerford. I understand that he is in something of a dilemma because he has to be seen to be responding to what happened there. Clearly, we all expect the Home Secretary to respond effectively. He has to balance the legitimate rights of the shooting fraternity. I am not a member of that fraternity. I no longer shoot, although I used to. The Home Secretary now faces a barrage of lobbying, not only from those who wish to own firearms but from those who wish to own shotguns. Underpinning that whole lobbying system is the lobby organised by people who engage in field sports.
The dilemma that the Home Secretary must resolve is how to reconcile the need that he sees to impose restrictions upon certain weapons while at the same time not infringing on the rights that he as the Home Secretary wishes to maintain for the shooting sports lobby. That is the problem. I asked him how he felt the abolition of semiautomatic weapons would have prevented what happened at Hungerford. He said that of course there could never be any absolute guarantee. I am not asking for a guarantee because we can never have guarantees. The abolition of semi-automatic weapons would not have prevented the events at Hungerford.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) was not aware when he made his speech that he gave the game away. He spoke about three classes of weapons that are commonly used for field sports, blood sports and stalking. Any one of those weapons could have been used by Michael Ryan to inflict carnage on the town of Hungerford. He did not need a Kalashnikov. The fire power and bullet velocity qualities of the Kalashnikov were of no consequence to the issues at Hungerford. The issue there was about a man who had clearly lost all sense of what he was doing and who had possession of a weapon capable of firing about 30 rounds in about one and a half hours. The hon. Member for Dumfries knows that any of the sporting weapons that he mentioned could have done exactly the same damage as Michael Ryan did with the


Kalashnikov. Therein lies my reservation about what is proposed. While the banning of the Kalashnikov might let the people of Britain sleep easy in their beds, it would do nothing to prevent the recurrence of events like those in Hungerford.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) knows the depth of feeling in the House and outside for his beleaguered community. The hon. Gentleman made four suggestions about how he felt the Government should respond. I listened carefully to his speech because about three or four weeks ago, probably in common with a number of hon. Members, I was approached by the members of a local gun club who expressed their concern. I spent several hours with them at their site at Llanbradach in my constituency. It was interesting to apply the hon. Gentleman's proposals to the situation in my constituency. First, he said that high-powered, high-velocity weapons should he locked in an armoury. The site in my constituency is licensed by the Home Office and is used frequently by the Ministry of Defence, by the SAS who come down from Hereford. The site is on top of a mountain and is in the semi-circle of a coal tip. Access is after a journey of about three and a half miles across open countryside. The armoury, if that is what it is called, is a small stone building used for storing targets. There is no security, and there cannot be.
The hon. Gentleman may say that it is necessary for that club to build a proper armoury. It may well be that in Newbury and in Westminster and in the more affluent parts of Britain gun clubs have the resources to spend £15,000 to £30,000 to build a secure armoury. The scores of people who belong to the shooting club in my constituency are miners, farm workers and unemployed people. By and large, the membership of that club represents the population of my constituency. They would not be able to build an armoury and if they were restricted in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests my constituents, who are currently quite legitimately allowed to use weapons, would be deprived of their enjoyment of those weapons. That deprivation would result from their inability to pay. If we are to impose any restrictions, they should be on the basis not of a person's ability to pay but on some other system of merit, justice or security.
The hon. Member for Newbury also suggested that there should be restrictions on the volume of ammunition. I think that the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) said that hundreds of rounds of ammunition would be used. Shooters usually compete on Sunday afternoons. That practice may not be followed elsewhere, but certainly in my part of the world shooting on a range on a Sunday afternoon is an accepted part of the sporting calendar. It is as well to remember that the events that we are describing are recognised by the Olympic Federation as Olympic sports. On a Sunday afternoon people who wish to shoot on the range in my constituency have to drive to the range and carry their ammunition. How else can they equip themselves for a shoot of four to six hours unless they come equipped with a box of ammunition or a dozen magazines? Are they to go down every half hour to the local gun shop in Cardiff, which is not open on a Sunday anyway? How are they to cope with such a restriction? The hon. Gentleman's third point about a ban on holding a number of guns is superficially attractive. Michael Ryan did his damage with one gun.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Michael Ryan was carrying three guns—a Kalashnikov, an M1 carbine and a Beretta. He used the Kalashnikov and the Beretta.

Mr. Davies: I understand that the Beretta was the last weapon that he used and that the damage was inflicted with the Kalashnikov. That is precisely the point I made, that he needed only one rifle. Preventing a licensed person from having half a dozen weapons makes no progress in the sort of control that the hon. Gentleman suggests. If a person is deemed to be fit, in the eyes of the law, to possess a high-powered rifle, how can he be deemed unfit in the eyes of the law to possess a second high-powered rifle? That question must be answered by the hon. Member for Newbury.
In itself the banning of semi-automatic weapons would in no way prevent a recurrence of the sort of events that happened in Hungerford. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would have looked at greater length at the events at Hungerford and that he would have instituted a public inquiry to examine not only the events, the possession of weapons and the police response, but the very confused and dangerous area of the possession of weapons

Mrs. Ann Taylor: This debate is important. This topic was chosen as the first subject to be debated in Opposition time after the recess because of the widespread concern of Opposition Members and, as we have heard. of some Conservative Members. Certainly there is concern throughout the country, not only about the incidents this summer, but about the increasing use and misuse of firearms in Britain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we had hoped that there would be general agreement throughout the House on the constructive proposals in our motion. We are disappointed that the Home Secretary's amendment and his speech this afternoon indicate that as yet he is willing to permit himself to make only minimal changes. We are disappointed and alarmed that he does not seem to grasp the urgency of the need for a complete and thorough review of the whole basis of gun control.
Conservative Members have urged the Home Secretary to delay and water down his limited proposals. I urge him not to backtrack, but to go further, and in particular to push ahead as quickly as possible, not only with legislation, but with the amnesty that he has proposed. He said this afternoon that that would take time to organise and publicise. We accept that, but he should not be complacent and simply say that it will happen some time next year. He needs to firm up on all those proposals if we are to make progress on this important matter.
My hon. Friends have acknowledged that many people who own and use firearms are not a threat to themselves. their friends, their families, their neighbours or to society as a whole. We accept that there are some people for whom the use and ownership of a firearm is probably an essential part of their working lives. We think of farmers in particular. We are not attempting to insinuate that all those who hold and use firearms are likely to misuse them: nor are we suggesting that they would knowingly allow them to fall into the hands of others who could misuse them. We are not attacking every member or every gun club as being irresponsible.
What we say, however, is that the increase in violent crime, the number of accidents and the misuse of firearms


generally has caused concern for several years. The incidents this summer have highlighted that concern and brought the fears of many to the forefront. However, there is no way in which that concern can be seen, as some Conservative hon. Members would suggest, as an alarmist reaction to the events of Hungerford and elsewhere this summer. The calls for stricter controls from Opposition hon. Members go back a long way.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook outlined earlier today the attempts by my hon. Friends on many occasions to raise with the Home Secretary the need for stronger controls. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) all had meetings and correspondence with the Home Secretary to press for tougher action long before those recent incidents. They warned that such outbreaks and incidents could occur if controls were not improved, but all that is in the past.
What we must recognise is that the need is clear and the climate right for significant changes in the law on gun control. The Home Secretary said that we must think of legislating for 20 years ahead, and he gave that as a reason for delay. I believe that that is a reason to be as comprehensive as possible in the measures and changes that we decide should take place. The House now has to decide what the changes will be. Virtually every hon. Member agrees that changes in gun control must take place. The question is the extent of those changes — whether the changes will simply be to deal with some of the loopholes that evidently exist, some of which have been acknowledged by the Home Secretary, whether dealing with those loopholes will be the limit of the changes proposed, or whether we will review the whole basis of gun control.
The Home Secretary said today that he is willing to take what he called significant action. He has accepted the need for strengthening controls, but he has not made it clear where he stands on the points in our motion. He did not say where he stood on the individual licences for shotguns and all the other points. When the Minister winds up the debate this evening, I hope that he will be specific about the points raised in the Opposition's motion. Surely he must agree that it cannot be right for an individual to hold any number of shotguns on the basis of one licence. The police cannot be expected to supervise effectively the possession of shotguns if they do not have a record of the number of shotguns that an individual owns. At present the police do not even know the number of shotguns in circulation. That is why we believe that a separate certificate should be required for each shotgun. The Home Secretary needs to make his position clear on this, and I urge the Minister to be specific about that this evening.
Also mentioned in our motion is the creation of a central register of all approved firearms and shotguns, as this would greatly assist the police in tracing the origins of firearms used illegally. The United States and many other countries have set up central registers of guns. While this cannot wholly prevent the illegal use of weapons, it can act as a deterrent, it is an incentive to hold weapons securely and, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) said, it will ensure the proper recording of the theft of weapons from a legitimate owner,

The Home Secretary agrees with our third point. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to extend the ban on automatic weapons to semi-automatic weapons. We agree with him that there can be no justification for an individual holding such weapons, but this is the only point mentioned in our motion on which the Home Secretary has commented. I repeat that we do want to know where the Government stand on the issues raised today.
We would also like the Home Secretary's comment on our fourth proposal, which is the ability of an individual to purchase weapons by mail order. It cannot be right that a person can buy a pump action shotgun, or any weapon, through the mail. It represents an unacceptably casual approach to the purchase of potentially deadly weapons and we believe that it should he stopped.
The measures that we have proposed in the motion are by no means the limits that we would like to see on new controls. The points in our motion are simple and practical proposals which are supported by the Police Federation and which we hope to use as the basis for common ground in today's debate. I believe that we will need to go further in new legislation and say that before a licence is issued or anyone is allowed to hold a gun in his home we should shift the onus of proof as to why someone needs a gun. Further, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said, we should look at the rules governing the establishment and running of gun clubs, and look thoroughly at the rules and legislation on ammunition. Incredible though it seems, presently anyone over the age of 18 can legally store 30 lb of gunpowder for his private use. Surely such a provision is asking for troulble.

Mr. Kevin Barron: For Guy Fawkes

Mrs. Taylor: For Guy Fawkes, indeed. It is significant that, in the incidents that have occurred this summer and have caused such concern, each of the gunmen had access not only to a number of weapons but to vast amounts of ammunition. While the control of ammunition may be difficult, and while I recognise that many gun users make their own ammunition because of the high cost of buying it, we have to ensure that we minimise the easy availabilty of ammunition so as to minimise the risks.
Much of what we propose is designed to minimise risks. We recognise that it can never be possible to prevent all crimes involving firearms. As many of the letters from the gun lobby point out, it will never be possible to legislate for a mad man. Of course it will not. It is not conceding anything to recognise that, but we can and must legislate to reduce the scope for the deliberate and the accidental misuse of guns. We know that we cannot prevent that entirely, but we must minimise risks.
Above all, we must decide where our starting point will be. Do we start from the premise that everyone is entitled to own a gun? Do we follow the United States model, or do we start from the premise that society has a right to security and to the freedom to go about its normal daily business with as much security and as little risk as possible, and that only those who can show good need to hold a firearm, as well as their basic stability — although this is a difficult area, since only this summer several murderers were legally in possession of their weapons — should be allowed to hold one?
The Home Secretary proposes to change the onus of proof in relation to knives—

Mr. Hurd: The possession of knives in a public place.

Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that if someone carries a knife in a public place the onus will be on him to prove why he is carrying it. The same should be true of firearms. The Home Secretary may not have heard the comments of some of his hon. Friends, who said that it was reasonable for someone who held firearms to lock them in the boot of his car while he went into a cafe for a drink on his way to a shooting match. I believe that that is an unreasonable place in which to store guns, and I hope that the Home Secretary will agree. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that he might agree with that and that there should be stricter controls on the transportation of lethal weapons.
The Opposition acknowledge that those changes would mean the loss of some rights among some gun holders, but sporting activities could be reorganised if the will was there. It would cause some inconvenience, although that would be as nothing compared with the loss of rights of all of us if the use and misuse of guns became even more widespread. The extent to which guns and violence generally are part of our society is alarming, and the extent to which they are part of the so-called entertainment industry is incredible.
Recently there has been much speculation about the extent to which gunmen have modelled themselves on the dubious heroes of films and videos — Rambo and the like. Whatever may have been the case with the gunmen this summer, it is impossible to believe that it is a sign of a healthy society to have a series of Rambo books produced for children of junior school age in which violence and the gun rule. They include titles such as "Operation Suicide" and are published just for children. A gun culture and mentality in our society diminish the freedom of everyone, so we do not apologise for our proposals to introduce the most stringent controls on guns.
We are at a crossroads. We will either bow to the gun lobby and its reported £100,000 campaign designed to limit controls, or, as the Opposition hope, we will grasp the opportunity comprehensively to rationalise and tighten gun control. Unless we go further than the Home Secretary proposed today, Britain will move nearer to living with violence. The whole House has a responsibility to prevent that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said, this has been an instructive debate. It enabled my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to present the main elements in his proposals, which will soon be set out in a Bill. As a consequence, hon. Members have had an early opportunity to comment on those proposals and to make their suggestions for changes to law or to practice. In deciding what should be in the Bill, my right hon. Friend will pay close attention to what has been said during the debate.
Before I deal with the substance of the argument, I shall re-emphasise two points made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Nothing that we can do by way of law or practice can be guaranteed to prevent a tragedy from recurring. Moreover, nothing that we can do by way of changes to statutory law will prevent criminals from gaining access to guns. We can hope to reduce the risk of

tragedy and make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. But we need to be realistic about our attainable objectives. The shooting community, to which I belong, is a large, respected, and well-established part of our national life. Its interests are lawful and proper and must be taken fully into account. I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said on this point. We need to strike a fair and proper balance between the need and demand for greater gun control and the legitimate concerns of shooting people who, with only rare exceptions, are as responsible and law-abiding as any in our community. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for saying that we have the balance about right.
To the extent that time permits, I propose to deal with all the points that have been made by hon. Members either by way of specific questions or suggestions or by way of criticism of our proposals. If I fail to respond to any point, I mean no discourtesy to the hon. Member and I shall respond in writing later.
I shall deal first with the four main criticisms. The first proposition advanced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which received support from the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), was that every firearm should be subject to a separate certificate. I assume that that proposal applies to shotguns as well as to other firearms such as rifles arid pistols.

Mr. Hattersley: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman confirms my understanding. It is important for him to do so, because we must be clear about the manpower consequences of such a proposal. In Great Britain, there are about 198,580 firearms certificates and nearly 930,000 shotgun certificates. Frequently, firearms certificates cover several weapons, and we believe that there are well over 3 million shotguns in the community. An application for section 1 certification takes about two and a quarter hours to process. Simply to process the original application for each gun to which the proposal relates would impose a massive burden on police forces equivalent to thousands of police officers working a complete year. Before we went down that road, we would have to be certain that the net benefit in terms of law enforcement was substantial. I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said on that point.
The second main point made by the Opposition was that we should subject shotguns to section 1 control. Why not impose a requirement that there should be a good reason to possess a shotgun? First, I want to re-emphasise what we are doing to increase controls on shotguns. We propose to subject semi-automatic weapons to the control of section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. Secondly, we propose a statutory place of security condition regulating the keeping of shotguns when not in use. We are also considering a system for keeping records of those shotguns that individuals possess. However, our objective is arid must be to improve gun control and not merely to increase restrictions for the sake of being seen to do something.
My fear is that if we impose a "good reason" requirement on the possession of shotguns, we shall face massive non-compliance. If that happens, instead of there being a general acceptance of the measures already


outlined, a very large number of guns will simply disappear. The effect would be to make gun control less effective than if we were to adhere to the measures that I have just outlined.

Mr. Holt: If this manpower problem is so onerous, why does the job have to be undertaken by the police? We do not use police officers in connection with television or automobile licences until the law is broken. The presumption is, as hon. Members have said, that 99 per cent. of legitimate shooters who apply for licences are decent people. There is no need to bring the police into this matter at all. There are enough retired senior officers from the services unemployed in my constituency to deal with the problem.

Mr. Hogg: One of the problems is that a number of Labour-controlled councils will simply not employ members from the public services in receipt of a pension. I hope very much that the Opposition will denounce that policy.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hogg: I will not give way now.
Although it is perfectly true that we could use civilians for a number of the functions involved in gun control, I do not believe that the main thrust of that policy could be delegated to non-police officers.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way now?

Mr. Hogg: No, I want to proceed if the right hon. Gentleman will permit me. He will have to allow me to get on.
The next point made by Opposition Members — largely, although not exclusively, by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook — was a call for a complete ban on all automatic and semi-automatic weapons. To the extent that that proposal is not already covered by existing legislation or by the Home Secretary's proposals, I suggest that that point goes too far. All fully automatic weapons are available only on section 5 certificates and that is never made available to individuals.
The proposals of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary involve extending section 5 control to burst fire guns and full-bore self-loading rifles. We shall consider including in a Bill a residual power to enable the Secretary of State to lift into section 5 control any specially dangerous fast-firing gun. Such a power would be subject to the ordinary control of Parliament.
The proposals made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook go too far. First, they would prohibit the possession of all self-loading pistols. That would destroy the ability of most pistol shooters to participate in traditional and well-established competitions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, or should know, self-loading pistols are a very popular form of hand gun much used in traditional pistol shooting competitions. We believe that section 1 control is adequate to cover that. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would prohibit the possession of a ·22 calibre Rimfire rifle much in use for vermin control. Again we believe that section 1 control is adequate for that. Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would mean a total ban on semi-automatic

shotguns of which there are probably about 200,000 in the country. We believe section 1 control is adequate for those guns.
The next general proposition raised concerns mail order.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister share my concern that the limited and commendable proposals that he has made could be effectively undermined by the current EEC directive called "Mutual Recognition of Firearms Certificates" which can now be imposed in Britain against our will under the Single European Act, as the directive provides that by 1992 Community nationals could wander around Britain with Kalashnikovs so long as they have a valid licence issued in Sicily, Lisbon or Dublin? Will the Government do everything in their power to ensure that that directive is rejected by the majority of the EEC?

Mr. Hogg: Yes, Sir. The directive to which my hon. Friend refers sounds thoroughly undesirable to me. The Government's position is that we would regard any directive or draft directive as wholly unacceptable if it fetters our ability to impose the kind of gun control that the House considers appropriate.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I am sorry. Much as I dislike disobliging my hon. Friend, I intend to continue.
The next major proposition related to mail order. A number of the proposals that I have already outlined have an impact on mail order firms. However, we are concerned about the law which relates to the dispatch and carriage of guns and we are looking into that. I must say that I was surprised and pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall)—not a natural ally of mine— supported my reservations on the amendment so far as it relates to mail order.
I wanted to consider some of the specific points that have been made during the debate. Compensation was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), Kingswood and Dumfries. We have not come to a conclusion on that matter. However, there are real problems of principle and practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury made a distinguished contribution. In the course of his remarks he made five points of substance. First, he referred to clubs. I agree with his comments on that. There is no reason to suppose that the law is not effective, but we propose to examine the law to see whether further checks are necessary. Secondly, he made a very important point about amnesty. He said that when weapons are handed to the police as part of an amnesty, they should not be available to return to a pool of illegally held weapons. I agree with that important point. Thirdly, he said that there should be photographs on certificates. We will look at that valuable suggestion. Fourthly, he referred to specialist firearm squads within forces. That practice is already being adopted. Finally, he made an important point about the recording of guns and was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), the latter in an intervention. We are giving urgent consideration to a method of recording the number and identity of shotguns. However, we must take into ccount the resource implications.
The hon. Member for Greenwich suggested that all guns should be kept at a club. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood disagreed and so do I. It would not be a sensible rule to apply universally because in some cases it would be inappropriate for a particular gun owner or gun and in any event it would make the arsenal a target.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood referred to the importance of safeguarding guns when they are in transit from the place of security to the point of use. That is a very important point that we must address. However, I take account of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who was anxious that we should not impose impossible conditions during the period of transfer. We will do our best not to do that.
I welcome the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries that, in future, magazines in semiautomatic guns should be restricted to two cartridges. I am sorry that he considers that there has been a lack of consultation. In fact, we have been consulting fairly widely, and we propose to continue to do so. I take on board his point about the collection of antiques.
I fancy that it would be for the benefit of the House to proceed to the next business. Therefore, I conclude by apologising to those hon. Members to whom I have not responded in detail. I shall be writing to them.
Later this Session — we hope before Christmas — we intend to introduce legislation which will improve firearms control. In framing that legislation, we shall pay careful attention to what has been said in the debate. We must strike a fair and proper balance between the need and demand for greater gun control and the proper and legitimate interests of the shooting community.
I believe that our proposals will substantially improve firearms control but will not impose unreasonable or unjustifiable burdens upon those who shoot. It is in that spirit that I invite the House to accept the amendment that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 314.

Division No. 33]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Allen, Graham
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Alton, David
Buchan, Norman


Amos, Alan
Buckley, George


Anderson, Donald
Caborn, Richard


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Jim


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cartwright, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Harry


Bell, Stuart
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Crowther, Stan


Blunkett, David
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cummings, J.


Boyes, Roland
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dalyell, Tam


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Darling, Alastair





Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Martlew, Eric


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, James
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meale, Alan


Eadie, Alexander
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morley, Elliott


Fearn, Ronald
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galbraith, Samuel
Pike, Peter


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Randall, Stuart


Gould, Bryan
Redmond, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Reid, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Grocott, Bruce
Rogers, Allan


Hardy, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Harman, Ms Harriet
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Heffer, Eric S.
Sedgemore, Brian


Henderson, Douglas
Sheerman, Barry


Hinchliffe, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Holland, Stuart
Short, Clare


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hood, James
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Howells, Geraint
Snape, Peter


Hoyle, Doug
Soley, Clive


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Illsley, Eric
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Janner, Greville
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


John, Brynmor
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Turner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wall, Pat


Lamond, James
Wallace, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Walley, Ms Joan


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lewis, Terry
Wareing, Robert N.


Litherland, Robert
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Loyden, Eddie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McAllion, John
Winnick, David


McAvoy, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Macdonald, Calum
Worthington, Anthony


McFall, John
Wray, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


McLeish, Henry



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Ayes:


McTaggart, Bob
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen Adams.


Madden, Max



Mahon, Mrs Alice







NOES


Alexander, Richard
Favell, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkinson, David
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bendall, Vivian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gow, Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Bottomley, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grist, Ian


Bowis, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hanley, Jeremy


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Harris, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Haselhurst, Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Burt, Alistair
Hayward, Robert


Butcher, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Chris
Heddle, John


Butterfill, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James


Carttiss, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David
Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Janman, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Durant, Tony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Key, Robert


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Knapman, Roger


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fallon, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Knox, David





Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rost, Peter


Latham, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Major, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sumberg, David


Miller, Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thorne, Neil


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Thornton, Malcolm


Moss, Malcolm
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mudd, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Neale, Gerrard
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Onslow, Cranley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Walters, Dennis


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Portillo, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Price, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Raffan, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilshire, David


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Redwood, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Rhodes James, Robert
Wood, Timothy


Riddick, Graham
Woodcock, Mike


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Yeo, Tim


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Rossi, Sir Hugh

Question accordingly negatived.

Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the time has come for strengthened system of firearms controls; welcomes the announcement by the Home Secretary on 22 September of the main conclusions of the study of ways in which firearms legislation might be improved; supports the need for further urgent but careful and detailed consideration of other possible measures under review; and endorses the Government's intention to announce shortly the outcome of this examination and to introduce new firearms legislation during this session of Parliament.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In exchanges on a point of order earlier a request was made for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House about the financial markets and their economic implications for the United Kingdom. The Chancellor of the Exchequer chose not to make such a statement, but in exchanges thereafter the Opposition made an offer to change the next debate to cover that subject and to enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take part — [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That offer by the Opposition would have permitted the Chancellor to make a statement now and to tell the House what he should have told it earlier without having been forced to come here, but it has not been accepted.
I ask the Government, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether they intend to make a statement today. If there is no such intention, may we insist that a statement he made tomorrow at the latest? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already spoken to the stock exchange, but he is accountable to the House of Commons, not the stock exchange.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It is open to the Shadow Cabinet to choose the subject for debate today. Following the earlier exchanges, there were discussions through the usual channels. I think that it would be wrong, and not in the interests of the House as a whole, to seek to change the business at such short notice.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a long-standing engagement in the City which I am certain he is right to fulfil. I cannot for one moment accept the Opposition's strictures.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rumours are floating around the Palace of Westminster that every pressure is being applied to stop a statement being made and to prevent the Chancellor being questioned. It is extremely unfortunate that once again the House is being treated with contempt. The Chancellor is to make a statement later tonight on the subject on which we wish to question him, but he refuses to come to the House. In view of the importance of this subject to our constituents—[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Winnick: The matter is of importance to our constituents in terms of their jobs, which the Opposition regard as crucial, even if the Government do not. Will you, Mr. Speaker, ensure that the Chancellor makes a statement at 10 o'clock tonight?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful if I repeat what the House already knows. I am not in a position to insist that the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes a statement.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Opposition are indulging in no more than synthetic outrage. If the Opposition are so concerned about the stock market, which sustained its biggest falls last week, why did the Leader of the Opposition not question my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the


House earlier? The Opposition show synthetic concern because they made a mistake in choosing the topic of debate for today.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the changes that has taken place today in the fall of the stock exchange and the changes throughout the world is that it is reported that the underwriters have asked for the BP flotation later this week to be—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rees: The underwriters and others have asked the Government not to proceed with this major part of their policy which was a major factor in the general election. this House ought to be told what the Government's response will be. Everyone else has been talking about it, but the Chancellor is not doing his duty by this House on this issue, and the Leader of the House ought to do something about it.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm the rumour that when the Shadow Cabinet met they failed to agree on today's debate because they could not reach a united view on anything to do with the stock exchange?

Mr. Speaker: I never confirm rumours.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just been asked whether you could persuade the Government to make a statement, which is obviously very urgent. You replied that you were not in a position to force them to make a statement. However, will you confirm that you have control over private notice questions? I understand the convention of the House that you never allow a discussion about whether private notice questions have been submitted or whether the application was turned down. But will you confirm that it is possible for a private notice question application to be made at any time and not merely at Question Time? In that case, it would be possible for an application to be made that would enable you to decide that the Chancellor should come to the House at this stage and answer questions that hon. Members wish to ask rather than going off to the stock exchange. I hope that you will confirm that we can put these questions at this time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) knows that I have no authority to extend Question Time to later in the evening. There are precedents for statements to be made later in the day, but never private notice questions.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest that in the present situation it might be unwise, and probably pointless, for the Chancellor to make a statement until he has had time to reach agreement with his opposite numbers in the G7 countries? We would be most unwise to press him to make a partial statement at this time.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are one of the important people who safeguard the rights of Back

Benchers, and the Opposition in particular, in a system of democracy that holds the Executive accountable here in this House. It is clearly a calculated act of political cowardice for the Government to refuse to come here to make a statement. It is therefore incumbent upon us and, I suggest, you to ensure that there is full accountability from a group of people in government who are not giving the information—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Arrogant bastards.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear a very unparliamentary expression?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Cryer: In fact, it is an erosion of our democratic principles when the Government fail to come to the House when every other source of public communication in the country and abroad is discussing these very issues. Parliament is being denied the information, and that is an outrage to our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before tempers rise too much, will the hon. Member who made that unparliamentary expression now withdraw it?

Mr. Sedgemore: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hal Miller: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition's sudden concern for the stock market and their apparent forgetfulness of the importance of the national curriculum may strike you as odd, as it does me. On a more substantive point, has not the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) given the game away with his usual felicity of expression when he said that my right hon. Friend had lost a few bob last week? In other words, there is no urgency about this matter. Had there been, could not the Opposition have applied to your office before 12 o'clock today to do something about it?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I think you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Friday several attempts were made with regard to another important issue to get the Attorney-General to the Dispatch Box to answer charges that had been made the day before. As a result, and it was almost unprecedented, the Attorney-General had to come here at 2.30 pm to answer questions from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the ANC plot. It was important that those questions were put. I am not so sure that we got very satisfactory answers, but that is another argument.
On this occasion the Chancellor has ignored all the pleas to come to the House to answer questions about the serious crisis in the stock exchange and the casino economy generally. You, Mr. Speaker, know that these matters were raised earlier last week. At the time when I did so the Chancellor was on television preaching to Reagan and telling him to get his house in order, yet he is not prepared to come to the House and to deal with the matter here. It would not be a bad idea if pressures were put upon the right hon. Gentleman, because he is treating Mr. Speaker with contempt as well. He is going off to the stock exchange with a £40 dinner in front of him no doubt, yet the House of Commons is not allowed to question him when there will be unemployment and cuts in social services as a result of all this. Those are the matters about which Labour Members are concerned, and the Chancellor ought to be made to do his duty to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. None of this has anything to do with the Chair. This is an Opposition Supply day and an important debate is to follow in which a large number of hon. Members wish to take part. There will be opportunities to discuss this matter later this week. There will be Trade and Industry questions on Wednesday and the Chancellor himself will be present for Treasury questions on Thursday. There will be opportunities then to question him, but I can do nothing about it now.

Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that as late as last Thursday the Opposition had the opportunity to determine the subjects for today's debates, yet not until today have they suddenly taken it into their head, and to their great surprise, that there are problems on the world exchange markets. Will you confirm that it is thoroughly mischievous for the Opposition to raise this today when they know perfectly well that it is simply an attempt to switch the business in order to embarrass the Government and Ministers? Given that it has taken until today for the Opposition to notice that there is a problem on the stock exchange, is not this an example of their trying to disrupt the business quite gratuitously?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I confirmed the hon. Gentleman's initial point earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a new Member who is very naive in the Chamber, I find it difficult to understand why, when one third is wiped off share values, the Chancellor should go to the City of London rather than coming to the House to make a statement. Can you offer me some guidance on how serious an economic crisis has to be before the right hon. Gentleman comes to speak to the House?

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow): It is far more responsible for the Chancellor to try to calm the nerves of the City than to try to calm those of Opposition Members, whose every utterance is damaging the economy.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members — perhaps even a majority — are now in favour of televising the proceedings of the House. The purpose of that would be, presumably, to show the world outside how immediately relevant our proceedings are to what people are discussing outside. May we assume, in pressing for a statement in a bipartisan attempt to solve the problem, that all hon. Members — including the many Conservative Members who are so anxious that our proceedings should appear to be relevant — are equally anxious to hear a statement on this matter that everyone is discussing?

Mr. Rob Hayward: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Opposition maintain that there is a crisis now, and are asking for a statement. I understand that the stock exchange closed 111 points down. At 12 o'clock, the closing point at which Opposition Members could have put down a private notice question, it was substantially further down. It was their choice—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, hon. Members should not refer to any application that may or may not have been made.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will not the Leader of the House help you, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House by saying that he is prepared to see the Chancellor between now and 10 pm to make arrangements for a statement to be made then, so that we may proceed with the business? Would it not be seriously misleading both the House and the country for anyone to be given the impression that — necessary though it is to secure accountability — the making of a statement by the Chancellor, either here or in the City, will do anything to ease the position on the markets?

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There must be something wrong when we hear the Opposition championing capitalism. For Opposition Members to talk about trying to defend capitalism is hypocrisy of the highest order. What the House needs is for those of us who really care about the world outside the stock market to get on with our work and leave the country alone. The Socialists help no one else; they only try to help themselves.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your recollection that at half past three this afternoon I raised the precedent of Mr. Speaker King granting a private notice question application against the wishes of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Callaghan—as he now is—on what was, at the time, a rumour of a loan. There is also the precedent, in 1976, of Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd granting private notice questions on delicate financial matters. Has there been a change of policy by the Chair on granting private notice questions on what are, admittedly, delicate financial matters when the markets could be affected?

Mr. Speaker: Of course, every application is considered carefully on its merits. I have now had an opportunity to look up the precedent. It was at a time when the Government were seeking a loan. and I do not consider that the situations are comparable.

Mr. James Couchman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be for the convenience of the House to know that I attended most of the seminar at which the Chancellor was speaking today. It was not for members of the stock exchange, but for a large group of leading industrialists whose companies are quoted on the stock market. It was a long-standing engagement. whose cancellation would have caused considerable dismay in the City and among manufacturers and industrialists throughout the country. Surely there was much more purpose in my right hon. Friend's speaking to those industrialists than in his responding to the braying and baying of Opposition Members.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer insulting the House by refusing to come here and make a statement on what is clearly a matter of grave significance for the economy? Not only does the right hon. Gentleman physically resemble Nero, but he is clearly adopting the same attitude. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that you have the power to order the fat hounder to be dragged here from the dinner table?

Mr. Speaker: First, I have not that power. Secondly, I dislike that expression, which I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw.

Mr. Banks: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall say "the corpulent gentleman".

Mr. Speaker: That is almost as bad.

Mr. Banks: Is it possible, then, for the corpulent and right hon. Gentleman to be brought here in a tumbril? May we, moreover, have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the recently-announced resignation of the Lord Chancellor is in no way connected with this matter? Perhaps he holds shares on which he has lost money.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain why Opposition Members seek to invite my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to make a statement about the current effective and efficient running and growth of the British economy? If they are seeking clarification on what to do with their shareholdings and exposed option positions, perhaps they should telephone their stockbrokers.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that, despite any opposition that might be placed before you by the Government Chief Whip or any Minister, you have a right under private notice question procedure to grant a debate? In the event that a private notice question was submitted by my hon. Friends tomorrow — I am not saying that it will be — will you confirm that you would be free of pressure to decide in favour of an expression of opinion by my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber this evening?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a hypothetical question at the moment; the hon. Gentleman must wait until tomorrow.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you recall for the benefit of the House whether in January 1975, when the FT index was standing at 146, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) came to make a statement to the House about how he had managed to reduce confidence in the British economy to a point at which the index stood at one tenth of its present level?

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware of the anxiety of the small, rather than the large, investors, who are of as much concern to us as to the Government. Is it not incumbent on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the House to try to explain the effects of the Government's policy today on the dramatic fall in the stock exchange, and the effect on those small investors? Will you, Mr. Speaker, use your good offices to ensure that the Chancellor comes to make that explanation, not tomorrow, but today?

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know through the usual channels, the Opposition have been pressing the Chancellor to come to the House and make a statement since the House reassembled last Wednesday. While my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was referring to the attendance in the Chamber of the Attorney-General on Friday, Conservative Front Benchers said that he had volunteered. Our problem to date is that we depend on the Chancellor's volunteering to make a statement. Will you confirm, Mr. Speaker, that we do not have to depend for ever on the Chancellor making a statement, because it lies within your powers to accept a private notice question that would require his attendance in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I look carefully at every private notice question application and consider it on its merits.

Education

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on consultation on the Government's education proposals. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. As this debate has started somewhat late, I make a special appeal for brief contributions from both the Back and the Front Benches.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the interests of the nation's children require that any major educational changes should be based upon broad public agreement: notes that the Secretary of State for Education and Science has generally allowed six weeks only for the responses to his consultative documents to be submitted and has made clear that he will ignore most of those responses: condemns Her Majesty's Government for making a mockery of the consultative process: and calls for the suspension of all proposals for legislation so that proper public consultation and debate can take place upon proposals which, if implemented, would fail to improve genuinely parental choice, impose unnecessary additional burdens on schools and teachers and seriously damage the education of the nation's children.
The Conservative party's general election manifesto pledged this Government to widespread change in the nation's education system. However, in some parts of that manifesto the Prime Minister has decided to stand on her head — for example, on the national curriculum. Two years ago, in the White Paper "Better Schools", the Prime Minister emphatically ruled out a national curriculum. We are now told that it is to be the centrepiece of these reforms.
In other cases, there have been the gimmicks of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The so-called city technology colleges were incorporated in the manifesto. As for the rest of the education system, the pledges originated with the extreme right-wing Hillgate group and an assemblage of little-known Tory BackBenchers, who called themselves the no-turning back group. In its preposterous pamphlet, "Save Our Schools", this band of 13 set down in detail all the schemes in the manifesto for the creation of central state schools — opted-out schools as they are known — and for so-called open admission, and other hair-brained schemes for the balkanisation of the nation's education service. It was on the basis of these assertions — to call them ideas would be to do an injustice to the English language—that the Government now claim a mandate for embarking in haste on the greatest and least considered upheaval of the education system that this country has ever seen.
Whatever won the election for the Conservative party, it was not its education policy. Labour was further ahead on education by the end of the election campaign than it had been at the beginning. That was thanks, in large part, to the excellent advocacy of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), but it was thanks, too, to the quite separate efforts of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister set the hares going as to whether opted-out schools could charge fees, select their own pupils and pay teachers higher salaries. Each of the Prime Minister's statements had to be disowned by the Secretary of State as soon as he heard about them, having turned on his car telephone about six hours too late.
In its summer edition of "Crossbow" the Bow Group commented acidly that the education policy
has failed the unpredictability test
and confirmed that the policy had indeed been "cobbled together" at the last minute. Since the Bow Group numbers among its patrons the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Employment, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Bow Group is presumably in a position to know.
A poll in The Sunday Times just after the election showed that many more parents were opposed to the plans for schools to opt out than were in favour. Evidence in the same paper yesterday showed that that trend is accelerating, with the Conservatives losing the argument on education.
In the course of this debate, the Secretary of State will no doubt plead the doctrine of the mandate in the face of mounting hostility to his plans, but whatever the arguments about the nature of the mandate for his proposals, the Secretary of State has no mandate whatever for the timetable that he and the Prime Minister are now seeking to impose upon a reluctant House and nation. The manifesto was wholly silent on the timetable. So, too, were the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State throughout the election campaign.
Nor, indeed, was the Secretary of State explicit about the timetable in the debate on the Loyal Address just four months ago. Instead, what we had then from the Secretary of State were honeyed words about consultation:
There will be a debate not just in the House but in the country. We want to listen to people in the education system."—[Official Report, 1 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 586.]
The honey turned to treacle when the Secretary of State addressed the Council of Local Education Authorities in July. His words deserve to be repeated. He said:
I readily acknowledge … the need to take account of the expertise and experience of local authorities in the delivery of education. We shall listen carefully to the comments of representatives of local government … Let us now work together to consolidate the progress we have made … The Government's policies will not be effective unless they secure the co-operation of the education service and the schools".
That was the promise. How different, how cynical, has been the practice. Five major consultation documents were published in July — on collective worship and on admissions, on 7 and 9 July respectively, and one on financial delegation on 20 July. Those three consultation documents set ludicrously short deadlines for the receipt of comments—by the second week of September.
The Secretary of State then showed even more contempt for the House by publishing the two most important documents, on the national curriculum and on opting out, on the very last Friday — 24 July — of the Session, after most hon. Members had left for their constituencies. His deadline was 30 September. The Secretary of State chose this period for listening very well, when most people and most institutions were not available to talk to him. Of the nine weeks that he allowed for response, six were during the school summer holidays when parents, teachers, local education authorities and national bodies had all dispersed.
The Secretary of State bleats on about parental choice. What kind of choice have parents been offered in this consultation exercise when, to formulate their views on matters which will have a profound effect on their children's lives, the Secretary of State gave them and their schools just three weeks to comment on the national


curriculum and opting out, and just one week — one week of term—to respond to the document on so-called financial delegation, which may force parents and governors to choose between an adequate supply of books, or the redecoration of classrooms, or an adequate supply of teachers? "By their deeds shall ye know them." For this Secretary of State, for this Prime Minister, parental choice is simply a hollow phrase. Parents and their children are simply pawns in a ruthless exercise to destroy our system of free education, provided by local communities.
What kind of choice has been given to parents in inner London by the Secretary of State, who has allowed just five weeks for responses to a scheme that will disrupt education across inner London when, even to close one tiny school, local authorities have to consult for eight weeks? In a survey that we conducted in September of a representative sample of 30 local education authorities, 97 per cent. had been unable, in the time, to consult parent-teacher associations, and 90 per cent. had been unable to consult school governors. In only 62 per cent. of cases was there time to consult the full education committee, and in only one case the full council.
To all this the Secretary of State may respond by referring to the thousands of responses that he has received—to the aggregate of 10,650 responses from individuals and 3,300 responses from institutions and bodies, as he told me last Thursday in a written answer. But the scale of the response should be of no comfort to him. It shows not compliance or agreement with his timetable but simply anger and concern about what he is proposing to do and how he is proposing to go about it — just as the scale of the response in Scotland shows unremitting hostility to the ideas of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
It takes a rare skill to unite the National Union of Teachers, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, all the parent's organisations and local authority associations, as well as every wing of the Church of England, including the Prime Minister's favourite bishop, Dr. Graham Leonard, the Lord Bishop of London. The Secretary of State has achieved that improbable feat.
The Secretary of State is aware of the opposition to his proposals and has had detailed analyses of the responses prepared for him by his Department. But the Secretary of State is so scared of the scale of opposition against him that he has refused my request to publish any of those analyses. I do not need to quote from the Secretary of State's erstwhile enemies; his friends will do. The Conservative Education Association, of which Mr. Phillip Merridale — a former chairman of the Association of County Councils — is a leading member, damned these proposals as "ideological extremism", and said that unless they were significantly modified the Bill
could lead to a drop in educational standards".
The ILEA opt-out proposal was described as "narrow Toryism." The Association of County Councils, which is dominated by Conservatives, has accused the Secretary of State of paving the way for
an educational dictatorship of a type this country has consistently resisted.
That is a point that Conservative Members should consider when they take account of the fact that written

into the draft Bill are no fewer than 31 separate occasions when the Secretary of State will be taking new powers under this central Administration.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with regard to new powers and dictatorships, one of the points that has not been to the fore is paragraph 33 of the consultation paper, on the curriculum in which the Secretary of State says that he will not only specify what qualifications and examinations will be offered in schools but that he will put, on a statutory footing, approval of the syllabuses or courses leading to those qualifications and that that will replace the existing free examination secondary school council? Is that not intolerable, because it will lead to educational dictatorship?

Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about that further degree of centralisation.
Dr. David Muffett, who is the Conservative chairman of Hereford and Worcestershire education committee, and who is no Tory wet, damned
the decision intemporately to accelerate the legislative process.
The Bow Group said
the idea of state schools opting out convinces no one.
The Secretary of State has even been unable to persuade the education committee of his own county, Surrey, in which his constituency of Mole Valley is situated, to back his plans. The Surrey education committee attacked the plans, and the county education officer, Mr. Malcolm Pinchin, made a plea to his Secretary of State. He said:
I hope he will sit up and listen.
I must tell Mr. Pinchin that that is a vain hope.
In June and July the Secretary of State told the world that he would listen, but he has now blocked his ears. Who can believe that the very same man who 10 weeks ago spoke of partnership, of working with the local authorities, of wanting the co-operation of the education service and its schools and of listening to what he was told should, at the Conservative conference, arrogantly and contemptuously dismiss all those who had taken him at his word but dared to oppose him by saying:
I do not intend to delay implementing our policies. I have no intention of changing our manifesto commitments.
I will only consider proposals which will enhance and complement them.
The Secretary of State was not saying that he will listen, not that he wants partnership, not that he wants cooperation, but that he will listen only when people tell him what he wants to hear.
How does that square with the statement of his Parliamentary Secretary in the Lords, Baroness Hooper, who said:
The Secretary of State has said that he intends to move ahead only with broad agreement."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1987; Vol. 488, c. 1070.]
If what the Secretary of State said at the Tory party conference was to be the basis of the consultation — evidently from the cheers from behind him it was — why did the Secretary of State not make that clear when he started this exercise, or at any stage in the debate on the Loyal Address, or in his speech to the Conference of Local Education Authorities? He could have spelt out this critical qualification: not that he wanted the genuine views of parents, teachers, governors, or LEAs about the future of this nation's education service, but that he simply wanted to use those people, to plunder them for ideas to


provide the detail about the manifesto commitments that he and the Prime Minister had so lamentably failed to provide in the election.
The House and this country deserve an apology from the Secretary of State for the way in which they have so grievously been misled. The very art of consultation implies that others may have greater wisdom; that it is worth them expressing their view. Consultation is a part of our democratic process. It is no wonder that the Conservative Association of County Councils spoke of fears of dictatorship.
In one speech after another the Secretary of State has preened himself by comparing his new Bill with the 1944 Act that it will, in large part, replace. In his conference speech the Secretary of State said:
This will be the most important piece of educational legislation since 1944.
Just before referring to that point the Secretary of State referred to Henry IV's Statutes on Education. I am not surprised that Henry IV is the Secretary of State's hero. It was Henry IV who played a dubious part in the downfall of Richard II. It was Henry IV of whom the Bard wrote, if I can find it—

Mr. Terry Hayes: It is in part II.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this meant to be helpful?

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Straw: In fact, it was Henry VI part III, and it was Henry VI talking about Henry IV. He said:
Henry IV by conquest got his crown, t'was by rebellion against his king.

Mr. Tony Baldry: rose—

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State, let it never be forgotten, was once the vicar on earth for the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Secretary of State ran the right hon. Gentleman's election leadership campaign against the present Prime Minister in 1975. In the debate on the Loyal Address the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said:
To compare this as a great development with what Rab Butler did would make that great man turn in his grave."—[Official Report, 2 July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 670.]
And so it would, not only for the content of the legislation, but the manner in which it is being pursued. If the Secretary of State wishes a place in history next to Rab Butler — as Education Minister, if not two times loser for the Tory party leadership — he should begin by following his wise example. Rab Butler did not use the urgency of war to ride roughshod over his critics. He set out painstakingly to listen—and to change his mind. He published the "Green Book" in the summer of 1941; he did not publish a White Paper until July 1943 and did not publish the Bill until 13 December 1943.
We all understand the wish of any Government to get their legislation through within a Parliament, but what is the rush? Butler's Bill went through Parliament, with extensive consultation, within the lifetime of a normal Parliament. What would be lost if the Secretary of State took his time and provided a worthy successor to the 1944 Act? If it would be too much to expect an aspirant for the leadership of today's Tory party to follow in the steps of Rab Butler, why not follow the example of his immediate predecessor, whose Right-wing credentials are far more impeccable than his own? Sir Keith Joseph listened and took time. The contrast between the Secretary of State's

railroading of the Bill and Sir Keith Joseph's careful approach to the 1986 Bill bears comparison. Sir Keith Joseph published a Green Paper in 1984, and a White Paper entitled "Better Schools" in 1985, but did not publish the Bill until 1986.
We know that the Secretary of State's concern for state education is skin deep. Like those of every one of his Cabinet colleagues, his children were opted-out of the state system years ago. He has ensured that, whatever upheaval occurs in the state system, the private sector remains untouched by his proposals, even by the national curriculum, which will have no legal force in private schools. These proposals will dramatically and directly affect the 93 per cent. of children who are in local authority schools, and their parents and teachers. These proposals will damage the education of our children. They may blight a generation if they go through unamended. It is time that the Secretary of State listened to teachers, educationists and those on his side, but above all to parents, whose name he often takes in vain, and to the children on whose behalf they speak.
I commend this motion to the House.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, to leave out from "require" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
that there should be no delay in the introduction of the Government's proposals for education reform, which have been endorsed by the electorate and provide an essential programme of action to deliver wider choice to parents, greater autonomy for schools and colleges to manage their resources in the best interests of the pupils and students, and higher standards of performance throughout the education system; congratulates the Government on the extent of its consultation and its willingness to continue consultation on the details of its proposals; and welcomes the scale of response to the consultation.
Obviously the new Opposition spokesman on education wanted a debate at the earliest opportunity in order to expose at full throttle the Labour party's righteous indignation to our proposals. Indeed, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen were so keen to debate the subject that earlier this afternoon they asked for it to be replaced by a debate on the economy. So much for their concern about education. At the first opportunity to discuss education since the recess they are prepared to drop the subject. On the matter of the urgency of getting our proposals on to the statute book, I can say only that it is a pity they were not on the statute book many years ago when the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was at school because, clearly, he would have benefited from the national curriculum proposals on English literature and English history. He managed to misquote Shakespeare and mix up Henry IV with Henry VI. There is about 80 years between the two.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman slandered Henry IV by saying that he had a direct hand in the murder of Richard II. Even worse, he said that he had a "dubious part"—an innuendo. I must give way so that he can justify his innuendo about Henry IV.

Mr. Straw: The reference to the Secretary of State's hero, Henry IV, appeared in "Henry VI, part III".

Mr. Baker: I understand and follow that. Nevertheless, it was a stumbling, fumbling quotation that did little to


enhance the hon. Gentleman's argument. I quoted the statute of Henry IV because it laid on the statute book a right for any man or woman in the realm to send their children to whatever manner of school they chose. It is an interesting example of early parental choice. It is an example of Lancastrian values.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Baker: If hon. Members will forgive me, I believe that several maiden speakers wish to contribute to the debate and I do not want to take too long.
The legislation that we shall bring before the House next month will constitute the most sweeping range of education reforms since the war. The hon. Member for Blackburn acknowledged that. I make no apology for that. It is the measure of the need for change. We are responding to the concern and worry of parents about standards. They know that, in spite of the high standards achieved by some of our schools, too often children are not achieving as well as they could or as well as they should.
In all revolutionary change there is a powerful strand of evolution. The hon. Member for Blackburn gave the impression that there had been no debate about educational standards over the past decade. However, our proposals for the national curriculum, which I first set out to the Select Committee on Education in April, build on the national discussions started by Lord Callaghan, as he now is, at Ruskin over 10 years ago, the work of Her Majesty's inspectorate and others in developing wider agreement on the objectives of the school curriculum, and our White Paper "Better Schools" published in 1985. I hear that the hon. Member for Blackburn claims credit for the national curriculum because he chaired a Labour party working group on the subject in the 1970s. He half saw a good idea and buried it for 15 years. But lapsed virtue is better than no virtue.
If the hon. Gentleman's ideas were so good, why did he spend the rest of the 1970s as a special adviser, not at the Department of Education and Science, but at the Department of Health and Social Security and at the Department of the Environment? Clearly, a prophet is not honoured in his own party. I have not had the benefit of seeing the report. Will the hon. Gentleman lay a copy in the Library, together with the various responses that it drew? We would all find it interesting. I am sure that it should be submitted to the Chesterfield group of the Labour party as well.
Our proposals for financial delegation to schools and colleges build on the best practice of a number of local authorities. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that. Local financial management is nothing new. It is a widely supported principle already being enthusiastically taken up by local education authorities and schools in many different parts of the country. At least 21 LEAs have developed experimental schemes. This is one of those areas in which the introduction of change is already running ahead of the legislation.
More open enrolment, based on the concept of the standard number introduced in 1980, puts right a basic injustice of parents denied their choice of school where places exist and are unused. In practice, many local authorities already seek to ensure that available places in demand by parents are fully taken up.

Mr. Graham Allen: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to press on.
Our proposals for grant maintained schools will restore diversity to our state system—a diversity so shamefully and wantonly destroyed by the Labour party when it got rid of the direct grant schools.
In our manifesto we told the people clearly what we intended and why. There was no hidden agenda. Since then we have issued 10 consultation documents setting out the details of our proposals in advance of legislation. I take it that these consultation documents are the real burden of the hon. Member for Blackburn's complaint. The higher education White Paper proposing changes in the structure and national planning of higher education was published as long ago as last April and since then we have published three supporting documents.
The hon. Member for Blackburn claims that the period of consultation since the election has not allowed those affected by the proposals to express their views. That belies the facts. There has been enormous interest in our consultation papers. Well over 100,000 copies of the various documents have been sent out in response to demand. That is on top of the 10,000 copies that we initially circulated to LEAs, churches, national bodies, parents' organisations and other bodies with an interest in our proposals. We have already received well over 14,000 responses. That is a very considerable response: evidence both of interest which our proposals have aroused and the care with which they have been considered. The timetable has been tight, but the responses show that those consulted have not found it unmanageable. Indeed, the responses precisely demonstrate that the object of this phase of consultation—to enable the Government to consider the views of the education service in drafting their legislation—has been fulfilled.

Mr. Straw: As the Secretary of State has had prepared for himself and his colleagues analyses of the responses, will he say, broadly speaking, what proportion of those 14,000 responses are in favour of his proposals and what proportion are against? If he cannot answer that now, will he place those analyses in the Library?

Mr. Baker: I have already replied to the hon. Gentleman, and the House will know that I have already arranged for the responses that we have had in consultation from all public bodies, institutions, governing bodies and local education authorities to be placed in the Library. We sent over two van loads last week, and more will be sent this week. We have had many responses from individual members of the public, particularly on the national curriculum. I do not intend to make those available, for the simple reason that we do not know whether a particular respondent would wish them to be made available. I think that the hon. Member for Blackburn would agree with that.
I have received analyses on many of the papers, but the analysis is a Civil Service and Government matter. As I have said, we have made all the responses available to the House. Others are free to analyse the papers and I believe that Labour party headquarters is well stocked with surplus staff ready to take on the task.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall give way to the spokesman for the Liberal party, but this should be the last time I give way.

Mr. Ashdown: The Secretary of State said that he was interested in the consultations because they would be helpful in drafting the legislation. If he intends to publish the Bill in mid-November, why does the consultation document on charging ask for returns by 30 November, a full two weeks later?

Mr. Baker: I made it clear in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman — I believe that it was public correspondence — that we do not intend to include proposals on charging in the first draft of the Bill because the consultation process has been extended. Local authorities have asked us to clarify the law on charging, and it is a very complicated matter. The first draft of the Bill will therefore contain no proposals on charging.[Interruption.] The Bill will be introduced in the Commons.
As I have made clear — and I wish to do so again today — the consultation does not end with the expiry of the deadlines on each document. In drafting the Bill we shall take account of comments received up to the point at which the text has to be finalised for introduction to the House. My discussions are continuing with the local authority associations, the churches and other organisations. Last week I was handed the CBI's response to the national curriculum consultation document. My door remains open. Many of the provisions in the Bill will follow the precedent of previous education legislation in setting a framework within which the details of implementation will be established by secondary legislation on which there will naturally be further and extensive consultation.
I shall explain to the House what that means. The national curriculum will be introduced only after the widest possible discussion and with the widest possible measure of agreement. That is why the reports of subject working groups will be published. I have set up two subject working groups and asked them to report by next summer. That is why the Bill will provide for a national curriculum council to consult education interests on my behalf before formulating specific advice on attainment targets, programmes of study and testing arrangements, and why I shall consult those interests again on the basis of draft statutory orders before seeking the approval of Parliament. We intend an open process, and that is what it will be.
That continuing process of consultation will inform all aspects of our proposals. For example, many have expressed concern about assessment and testing, although not, to be fair, the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has made plain his support for testing. In September he said:
There's no doubt that the parents want some objective yardstick against which to measure their children's achievement in education.
We agree, and we have asked a group of experts to come up with a coherent scheme of national testing and assessment to feed into the work of the subject working parties and the National Curriculum Council. Its report will be published and will form the basis of open discussion.
For example, the consultation has raised worries among some respondents that the national curriculum will be over-prescriptive, squeezing out time for important aspects of the school curriculum. We have asked the subject working groups specifically to develop attainment targets which embrace important cross-curricular themes and to develop programmes of study to support those

attainment targets. The aim is to ensure that the national curriculum reinforces the best of existing practice in schools. The consultation process will ensure that these and other issues can be fully addressed.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way.
For example, many who welcome our proposals for financial delegation express concern about some detailed aspects, and we recognise that. The legislation will leave with local authorities the responsibility for producing schemes of local financial management for my approval. We have commissioned consultants to develop work on the most effective and cost-effective ways of moving forward, based on the best practice that already exists. Their report will be published, I hope, later this year. It will help us to work with local authorities and others to work through and find solutions to the problems.
The hon. Member for Blackburn then argues that the problem is not that we have not consulted, but that we are not listening. Let me make the position quite clear. I have stressed to the local authority associations and others that I would value their experience and knowledge in achieving our objectives. As I have already said, there are many detailed aspects on which I expect to work with the education service, many of them identified in the consultation exercise. But the solutions will have to be found within the policies and principles to which we as a Government are committed. That is why, for example, in a letter to the local authority associations I have asked them to put forward proposals
in the interests of establishing an agreed course within the bounds of the route marked out by the Government".
A consultation process is not the means constitutionally by which we reach final decisions, although it can help to inform the proposals and the public debate. Parliament is the final arbiter. In the full light of what we have learnt from the consultations, we shall submit our proposals to Parliament to decide whether they should be implemented.
No one will be surprised that the Labour party has chosen to debate procedures rather than the substance of our proposals today, as during the election campaign it showed that it was devoid of ideas on how to improve standards for children in this country. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackburn, as he is trying to fashion a new education policy for the Labour party, but very little has changed. Just a few weeks ago, however, I heard one hesitant Labour voice asking some interesting questions. The following were some of them.
What should we be doing about the fact that fewer girls than boys take science and technology? Should local authorities be considering magnet schools? How do we involve parents more in their children's education? What are our proposals for monitoring the progress of each child against the peer group and against national standards? Are we rigorous enough in monitoring our schools to ensure that they are performing to standard? Those questions are on the right lines. They actually recognise the national debate of the past 10 years. But when the leader of the ILEA put them to his comrades in the Labour party he was roundly condemned. Not only do Labour Members not have any answers — they do not even like to have the questions asked.

Mr. Spearing: As the Secretary of State is asking questions, perhaps he will allow me to intervene.

Mr. Baker: I am not asking questions. Those questions were asked by a leading Labour spokesman.
As the New Statesman put it:
Neil Fletcher, and people like him, should have asked the hard questions years ago; they have been waiting to be asked for at least a decade since the James Callaghan 'Great Debate' on education ran into the sands. The Left did not face up to failures and to the manifest alarm of the mass of parents.
The reason for that silence is not difficult to find, and the hon. Member for Blackburn knows it. His party is the mouthpiece of the producers and not the consumers.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Baker: The hon. Member for Blackburn recognises that. As he timidly put it:
people in some of the white-collared public sector unions not affiliated to the Labour Party may have too much influence in setting the agenda and the language used.
I do not know whether that was passed by the Chesterfield group, but the sentiment is impeccable. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The reality is that the Labour party, imprisoned by the producers, has not dared to set any agenda at all. There is real mockery. It is we who have identified the questions and it is the Government who have proposed the answers — answers that will give greater choice to parents, freedom from doctrinaire interference, improved quality and better standards for all our children.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened with care to the Secretary of State and it seems to me that his argument falls into three basic parts.
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been general discussion for a number of years about matters relating to education and to the core curriculum. That is perfectly true, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot use that as an argument because he knows that many of the participants in that discussion, although they agree that there should be more commonality in the curriculum, disagree profoundly with the Government's proposals. I number among those people not just the professionals and those involved in education, but many members of the Conservative party. The Secretary of State cannot say that, because there has been general discussion, about some aspects of education, the detailed proposals which he is putting forward, which are anathema to many, do not require the fullest public consultation.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman sought to argue that he was somehow merely enshrining best practice. Any rational, objective judgment leads one to the conclusion that that is not so. A large number of authorities, many of them Conservative-run, fall within the right hon. Gentleman's definition of best practice but disagree with his proposals in the most pungent terms. The right hon. Gentleman represents the Bill as the great education reform Bill, but he knows perfectly well that many of his proposals go very much further than best practice. That is the truth. He would be doing the House more of a service if he were to admit to that here, as he claimed it to be the case when the audience was the Conservative party conference rather than the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman's final defence was that, somehow or other, he had a mandate, a consensus, for the proposals. I shall refer to that.
However, first I should like to mention the slight jibing — not wholly unwarranted — for the Labour party's Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn

(Mr. Straw). He said that we were talking about procedures. For some who are not directly involved in education, consultation might be a procedural matter. It is pretty extraordinary that the Secretary of State sees it as a procedural matter, some arcane subject that should not concern the House of Commons. The opposite is the truth, and the Secretary of State knows it very well, for this is not a mere procedural matter. It is not an arcane detail—it goes to the heart of the Government's attitude on bringing in the proposals, which many regard as among the most damaging and divisive that the country has seen for many a long year. It goes to the heart of the Government's attitude towards education. It is not about procedures; it is about the honouring of promises. It is about testing the Government's seriousness to maintain education as a partnership, not dictated from the centre. It is about measuring the Government's true intent in dealing with choice and establishing whether this is the truth or a cover for more centralised control. It is about establishing what will be the climate of change that dominates a period of profound change in the education system as a result of the Government's proposals. What will that climate be? That is what it is about.
Many regard those changes as fundamental, damaging and divisive. I number myself among those people, although the stated aims of the Government and the Secretary of State are ones with which I would wholly concur. The right hon. Gentleman says that his aim is choice. We shall see. He says that his aim is improving standards. We shall see. No one in the House or elsewhere would wish to gainsay those aims. I subscribe to them. The question is not whether the aims are right but whether the mechanisms and the means of putting them into practice are right.
As the hon. Member for Blackburn said, one does not have to look to statements by Opposition parties to discover the view on the matter. I have taunted the Secretary of State with this before. Before the House went into recess, I asked him to produce a single reputable body involved in education, either a consumer or a producer, which backed his proposals. The Secretary of State always claims that we are talking about the producers. That does not apply to the National Confederation of Parent Teachers Associations, which agrees that the proposals are damaging, divisive, and dangerous and will be destructive to our education system. He does not even have to look outside his own party for such judgments. I shall mention just one of the many Conservative education authorities that have commented on the proposals.
West Sussex is under massive Conservative control. It will be instructive for the House to note what the education committee felt in its resolution of 8 September. The committee stated:
The Committee feel that not only are these proposals unlikely to achieve the Secretary of State's objective of improving educational standards, but the costs of their implementation would be very substantial and the financial provision could be directed more effectively in other ways to the benefit of the education service.
That is not the Opposition speaking. It is not the producers speaking, which the Secretary of State has found it easy to dispense with and attack. That is a Conservative education authority's reasoned comment on the Secretary of State's proposals. He cannot simply push such comments to one side as if they do not matter.
The Secretary of State claims that there is a consensus in the country and that the matter was discussed during the


general election, so we can take it as read. But there is not even a consensus in his own party. That is the truth. If Conservative Back Benchers were more blunt, honest and frank, many voices would be raised against the proposals—a few courageous voices might even be heard tonight.
Against that background, I quote the words of Oliver Cromwell:
I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
There are few who know anything about education who agree with the proposals in detail—

Mr. Kenneth Baker: We are having a few history lessons tonight. I always find it extraordinary when Members of Parliament quote the words of Oliver Cromwell. He is the one figure in history who abolished us.

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, but after the monarch of the day had sought to do exactly the same thing. I shall not go into too much detail, but it is instructive for the House to remember that many of its rights and privileges date from that time.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State this question. In view of the comments even from his own party, the professionals, the experts, the head teachers whom he has called in aid in his support in the past, and from the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, will he not admit that he might be wrong? If he will, why has he conducted such a charade of a consultation process?
We are entitled to remind ourselves that in his speech on the Gracious Speech on 1 July he promised that there would be
a debate not just in the house but in the country."—[Official Report, 1 July 1987: Vol. 118, c. 586]
What sort of debate? Hon. Members, parents, teachers and those involved in education recall that promise and remind themselves that it has not been honoured. We have had a single-handed attempt to rewrite education over the brief months of the summer holidays when most are away.

Mr. Harry Greenway: With respect, the hon. Gentleman, like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), has slurred teachers by suggesting that they were not prepared to use any part of their holidays to look at the documents that we are discussing. All teachers have done so. I have talked to many who have done so and who have been involved in discussions all over the country. What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that most teachers have found it possible to react to the consultation papers, but he knows as well as I do, and the Secretary of State knows better than anyone, the anger and concern about people having to respond to those consultation papers in a rush. For example, many members of boards of governors are changed at the end of August, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will know well. What decent period of consultation can there be under those circumstances? In many cases, consultation papers have not even been available.
The process has been a farce, a charade. At best it has been a meaningless exercise and at worst it has been a deliberate attempt to provide a cover for the Government's intentions, indeed to provide a mechanism by which they can impose their own ideological prejudices irrespective of the views of others.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North might take account of other comments made by West Sussex. which will be instructive to him and others. It said:
There is great concern at the very short time allowed for comment which has not permitted any local consultation with governors, teachers, parents and other members of the local community. This is ironic in view of the Secretary of State's claim to value in particular the opinion of governors and parents.
That is the view of a Conservative association. The authority said that the lack of time was ironic in view of the Government's pretence of valuing the views of parents and others. Indeed, it is an irony. It is an irony that the Government pretended that they would hand power to parents and then made it clear that they were not prepared to listen to them. It is an irony that they pretended that they were interested in choice, but are not prepared to allow a realistic partnership and realistic consultation. It is an irony that the Government said that they wish to take politics out of education, yet by overturning a decent process of consultation they have imposed their own ideology in a way that those who follow will use as a premise.
I can imagine the roar of anger from Conservative Benches if a Labour or alliance Secretary of State had sought to impose those conditions without consultation and put so much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. The Government's failure to provide realistic opportunities for consultation with parents frankly exposes the lie behind their proposals. They are designed to put more power not in the hands of parents but in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. They are designed not to create reform through partnership, but to impose ideology, dictation and tighter control from the centre. They are designed not to preserve a unified education system, but to create a broken, fractured one. A divided education system for a divided nation — that is the charge to which the Secretary of State is now open. That is not a procedural matter it goes to the heart, and it shows the lie that is at the heart of the Government's proposals about giving importance to the views of parents. By treating parents and the views of others with such arrogance during this period of consultation the Government have shown that they are interested only in imposing their ideology and wrecking our education system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): This is a brief debate and I hope that hon. Members will seek to make brief speeches.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Following your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not take up many of the points made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), except to say that, throughout all these consultations, the parents have been mentioned time and time again. The decision to opt out of schools, the decision to give more power to teachers in the schools, and so on, show that. I believe that the more power one gives to parents and to teachers in the schools, the better it is for the schools and children.
I realise that time is limited, but I want to refer to the matter of consultation, which is the basis of the debate tonight. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned polls. The poll that mattered was held on 11 June. Since that time, the Labour party has been looking


at its bellybutton, trying to change its policy, and hoping to get way with it before it pulls its shirt down again. Sometimes that is done openly, as in Chesterfield — I shall not describe the colour of that shirt, or even where it was made. I suggest that the party is now trying to catch up with consultation. The Times Educational Supplement said in its diary this week — I have never thought of that journal as being pro-Conservative, whatever Mr. Murdoch's other papers may be—that the Labour party is now the
party of educational standards, share ownership and the family.
That leaves something out. It is not the party of those things but it would like to be, because it believes that unless it becomes so it will remain for ever more on the Opposition Benches. We sympathise with right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition. It is not very pleasant to be in their position. Now they say that they stand for share ownership and the family and consultation.
Where was the consultation when circular 10/65 went out? I was at the chalk face then. A draft went out to the local authorities, and I should like to know how it was changed in the light of their replies when the final circular went out. Similarly, when, in 1974, the Labour Government came to power again — one of those remiss events of history for which we can think of historical reasons — an Act was passed in 1976 that ended the selective schools in this country, and I do not remember a consultative paper at that time. That Act probably did more harm to working-class children in inner-city areas than anything else that has ever gone through the House.
If the Labour party wants to change its policies, I offer to help rewrite them. I have more time on my hands now, and I can help it make its policies more popular in the country — so much so that it will be cheered on both sides of the House.
Likewise, when the direct grant schools went, there was a three-hour debate in the House, and that was all. I do not remember any other consultation about that. Obviously, the electorate noticed at that time that there was not much consultation. They agreed to punish the Opposition, and remembered what they had done, at the next general election. But there is no doubt that the electorate disagreed with Labour's policy and lack of consultation at that time. I remember how the Labour party claimed to have a mandate for circular 10/65 and for ending the selective and direct grant schools. Speaking of mandates, I have here an interesting document, "The Next Moves Forward". It is not exactly written in Shakespearian terminology, but it is in good 20th century prose. It clearly states:
First, we will establish a National Core Curriculum.
So people knew what they were doing when they voted on 11 June. The document went on to say that it would give schools more control over their own budgets—that part is even underlined in a different colour. The colour is blue, which is a good colour, and it was well liked on 11 June, when it was a popular colour. It promised, thirdly to "increase parental choice." So, time and time again, we said exactly what we were doing and did it.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the consultations go on. Tonight's debate is part of the consultation process. My right hon. Friend has said that, until the proposals are set in concrete, consultation

will go on all the time. That is what many teachers and many people in the Conservative party would like. I hope that, consultation will bring change to some parts of the proposals. I am concerned by the fact that 80 per cent. of the curriculum is laid down — I think that that is too much, especially when it leaves out a second foreign language, the classics, home economics, business studies, art, music, drama and religious studies. That needs to be examined; some bright children should be studying two or three languages by the age of 15 or 16. What is proposed would be too tight a constraint upon them. On the other hand, there are other pupils who would prefer more vocational studies, such as they are being given in most countries these days, capitalist and Communist alike. I trust that such studies would be included. More time should be given to children who are vocationally orientated so that they know what they are doing and can get the jobs they want.
The hon. Member for Yeovil talked about best practices. This is all about the better part of best. We were looking at best practices, and the better part is put in. I particularly hope that the consultation process—

Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I listened to him for quite a long time, and I disagreed with him entirely. I am approaching my peroration, and I do not want to be slowed down on my run in or I may hit a hurdle.
We have set an example: we have said what we are doing, we are holding consultations so that the amendments that people want can be put forward. When the Bill is laid before the House, it should be one that all of us, whatever drawbacks we may now feel it to have, can support entirely. I trust that the Bill will be cheered throughout the length and breadth of the country and that it will do for education what should have been done a long time ago—the tightening of standards and the raising of teacher morale throughout the country.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is always a good turn. When he got on to circular 10/65 I dreaded that he was going to quote from William the Conqueror, and probably not do so too well. Listening to the Secretary of State's speech, one never ceases to wonder at his bland effrontery. His amendment
congratulates the Government on the extent of its consultation and its willingness to continue consultation on the details of its proposals: and welcomes the scale of response to the consultation.
In heaven's name, we had about as much consultation during the summer holiday as we heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tonight about the state of the country—practically nothing, in spite of the Secretary of State's so-called van loads. He knows as well as we do that, on the Friday before the general election, the Prime Minister panicked. She was talking off the top of her head and she spoke such nonsense about education that every other Tory speaker on that day tried to undo the damage that she had done that morning. One of the people who tried hard was the Secretary of State, but he was defeated.
Not only did the Prime Minister talk off the top of her head but we now have a Bill that embodies that nonsense and that we all know is practically unworkable.
Conservative Members show a pitiful inertia even when the Back Benches are full. When the Prime Minister says something that frightens them they all crawl to her. It is appalling that throughout Britain on this issue of education there is deep feeling and worry and that that concern is not at all reflected by Conservative Members. The Secretary of State and the Ministers around him constantly get confused and try to prove that something which is unworkable is workable. That is because practically none of them ever went through the state system of education, although some Conservative Members may say that somebody once did. The state education system is now in the hands of a group of people who are ignoramuses about it and do not know how it works or what to do with it. Those who are knowledgeable —and some of them were on the Select Committee on Education. Science and Arts with me — are terrified to say anything critical in case they get a kick in the teeth.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The hon. Gentleman should be a little careful about what he says. Not only did I and my children go through the state system of education, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education also went through it. It is a little dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to make comprehensive and sweeping statements.

Mr. Flannery: My statement was not at all dangerous. I said that some hon. Member would say that a Conservative Member had gone through the state system. There is no evidence in the Bill or in the speeches of Conservative Members that any of them did. If they did go through the state system, they have long since forgotten the experience because they are cutting education, and the Bill shows how much they hate the present education system. The Secretary of State called it the great education reform Bill and quoted Butler. In reality it is a deform Bill and does the opposite of the Butler Bill. It takes us back whereas he was taking us forward, after proper consultation.
This Bill requires immense debate, yet people were allowed only six weeks in which to say something about it, six weeks in which Parliament was in recess and the schools were on holiday almost from the same date. The education committees could not get together to discuss it because many of their members were on holiday, and the consultation process was an absolute farce. Therefore, no real consultation has taken place. What sort of mentality is it that tests children at 7, 11, 14 and 16? It is the mentality that teachers had when we were youngsters and Friday morning was test morning. We are to return to that state of affairs. In heaven's name, what is to be tested at the age of seven if we have a curriculum that is much wider? It is the three Rs that will be tested. We are returning to the 11-plus, and the broad general education that has existed for years for our children will be taken backwards instead of forwards.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that the Government's aims are good. That is not true because they know that they are taking us back. Their aims are not good and that is why there is no consultation. They aim to deform a good education system by damning it with faint praise at the best and damning it with the mentality of the Hillgate group and the black paper that has spawned all this. The Government talk about grant

maintained schools, but most parents do not even know what they are and do not know about the opting out system. The Prime Minister says that nearly all parents will opt out and the Secretary of State says that practically nobody will opt out. I wish that they would get together and make up their minds about it. If, as the Prime Minister says, all parents opt out, we will have a Department of Education and Science that looks like the Pentagon because it will have to try to control the masses whom the Prime Minister says will opt out.
The Government do not know what they are doing and they will create chaos in the education system because they are frightened of maddening the Prime Minister. She has said what is to be in the Bill and that is what is happening. Who have the Government consulted about the admission of pupils to maintained schools? What will happen when one school is full and another is nowhere near full? Will there be a vicious market-type struggle over who will keep a school open or who will close it? When this is put into action, it will hit the ordinary people and the children like a blow between the eyes. No one knows what open enrolment will mean. Have the details ever been talked through? Ninety per cent. of parents already send their children to the first-choice school. What will happen if a popular school is oversubscribed and other schools are undersubscribed?
Will head teachers be sent on some kind of accountancy course? I was a headmaster and I know that many schools now have to account for what they spend. There are experts in the local education authority who can see to that. Why do the Government so hate local democracy about which the Tory party once boasted? They want to destroy the local councils and they are beginning with the local education authorities. It is done with the spurious statement that they will give more power to parents. They are giving more power to central Government and taking it away from everybody, including the parents. They will charge for extras.
The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has experience of the capitation allowance. We went to the salubrious areas and found that capitations there were already three times as big as the capitation allowance. Some Conservative Members know about that. The wealthy gave money to the schools and the schools had plenty of books. In the east end of my city of Sheffield there is poverty and everything is run down. We have had cut after cut from the Government. How much money can my constituents give education to pay for singing lessons and music lessons? My constituents do not have the money, but people in the well-to-do areas will be able to pay.
I now turn to the grant maintained schools and the opting out procedure. I beg the Secretary of State to go back and consult properly so that all of us can get into the consultation process and the Government can learn what it is all about. The Government are undertaking a step in education that is so backward that it will cause chaos throughout our good system. I saw the German system when I was a member of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, and I have also seen the French system. They are nowhere near as good as ours.
It is about time that we had a little patriotism from the Conservatives about the education system that they are trying to destroy. There are no computers in all the primary schools in West Germany — we have computers in practically every school — and there are hardly any


computers in their secondary schools. If the Secretary of State has his way he will destroy the entire education system with what he calls his great reform Bill. Even at this late stage, the Minister and Conservative Members should face up to the Prime Minister, tell her about the grave dangers for our children's education, and tell her that we need more real consultation because during those six weeks when the schools were closed the House was also closed.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I shall not pursue all the hares that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) started, but, if the education system is as good as he said, why did the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, Lord Callaghan, introduce the great debate on education? My children were educated in the state sector, and I was educated in the state sector, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) and her children were. For the hon. Gentleman to imply that the children of Conservative Members are not educated in the state sector is absolutely and totally wrong, and he knows it.
This debate is a pre-emptive strike by the Opposition at the forthcoming Education Bill. Opposition Members recognise that that proposed legislation will do for education what the sale of council houses has done for tenants. It will increase the amount of freedom and choice that is available for the individual. It is an indication of the paucity of the argument of Opposition Members that their attacks have been concentrated on the time for consultation rather than on the substance of that consultation. Of course one would like to have seen even more time made available for consultation. That having been said, however, the Government have a clear responsibility to introduce as quickly as possible measures designed to improve the quality and standard of state education. There can be little doubt that the proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science will do exactly that.
In answer to parliamentary questions from me dated 20 and 24 July, the Secretary of State made it clear at that time that he was publishing a consultation document on the Government's plans to delegate to schools more control over budgets and also a consultation document on grant-maintained schools. The consultation document on the national curriculum was published even earlier than those two dates—on 9 July. Copies of those documents were widely distributed throughout the country. They were distributed to chief education officers of local education authorities and all national organisations that were known to be interested in education. I am advised that about 58,000 copies of the consultation document referring to the national curriculum were distributed and that about 7,500 replies were received. The Department of Education and Science received a massive response to those documents and that underlines the fact that, while the timetable may have been tight, it certainly was not impossible. The consultation documents are neither the beginning nor the end of the debate. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen must contain themselves. There is too much sedentary noise.

Mr. Pawsey: It is worth while recalling that there has been substantial discussion on all the consultation documents. The Secretary of State spoke to the north of England education conference as long ago as last January, when he signposted the way forward for education in the latter part of the 20th century. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) reminded us, education featured prominently in the Conservative manifesto. Our proposals were then widely debated. Those proposals must have been partly responsible for the massive Conservative victory that we had only four months ago. We won our third consecutive victory on the proposals contained in the manifesto, and those proposals referred in detail to education.
While the formal deadline for the response to consultation documents was 30 September, I have not the slightest doubt that comments will be received and, more to the point, will be evaluated during most of the period during which the Bill will be considered. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) tried to argue that point from a sedentary position during the speech of my right hon. Friend. Clearly Opposition Members and the public will be able to make an input while the Bill is being discussed. Therefore, there will continue to be a substantial opportunity for comments to be made and registered during the next few months. Hon. Members, therefore, may feel that a fair and reasonable amount of time has been made available for interested parties to respond to those consultation documents.
Interestingly, I read in the magazine Report, published by AMMA, that, on the issue of financial delegation to schools and grant maintained schools, the question, "Will it work?" was answered by a qualified yes. In my opinion, that yes will be endorsed by the House and by parents and teachers. The proposals for the national curriculum for financial delegation to schools, for grant-maintained schools and for open enrolment will do much to ensure an improved standard of education for our children. I remind hon. Members that the great debate on education was opened by the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in 1976, some 12 years ago. It was recognised 12 years ago that the education system required major overhaul. The proposals of the Secretary of State will ensure that the education system is overhauled and improved.
During the past 12 years the minds of educationists have been directed to methods of improving state education. It is nonsense to suggest that the consultation documents were the first indication that change was necessary. It has been indicated for years that change was necessary.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Pawsey:: The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not, because time is pressing and there is at least one maiden speaker in the debate.
While the scope of the imaginative measures that have been introduced by my right hon. Friend may have taken Opposition Members by surprise, they will do a great deal to improve the quality and standard of education in our schools. I urge the House to reject the motion and to vote for the amendment.

Mr. Jack Thompson: It is appropriate that the motion being debated is on the question of consultation. In the debate no doubt issues involved in the consultation documents will be raised. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Education and Science asking for an extension of the consultation period, following discussions I had with my local education committee and others. The Minister replied in a letter dated 15 September, which is a significant date relative to the consultation documents. I raised the interests of my constituents in the education proposals and I was fascinated that the last sentence of the letter stated:
We welcome your constituents' keenness to participate in this debate and look forward to receiving their comments in due course.
The closing dates for the consultation documents were 11 September, 16 September, 16 September, 30 September, 9 October, 16 October and 30 November, yet more than half of the closing dates were earlier than the date of my reply from the Minister. If the Minister and the Secretary of State thought it appropriate that consultation should continue, they should have made an announcement and said that consultation could continue for another month or two.
The people in my constituency to whom I have talked about the matter were worried about two things. The first was the proposals themselves and the six to eight weeks allowed for consultation. The second was the number of documents that were produced at the same time. My county is the northernmost county of England and is a long way from the Department of Education and Science. It takes some time for documents to reach us. Indeed, sometimes I think that they come by stage coach. But we received the documents and thought that we would have an opportunity to consult about them. I talked to as many people as I could. The matter was of key importance to the people in my area, whose major criticisms related to the limited consultation period and the fact that five documents were published at the same time.
The changes that were suggested in the documents were of great interest to my constituents, especially to parents and school governors. We were especially worried about the fact that our education committee, which was not scheduled to meet until August, had little opportunity to discuss the issues. More especially — this is where local democracy was challenged — the county council did not have the opportunity to discuss the issues because the time scale did not allow it. Indeed, the report from the education committee will go to the full council only this month. The democratically elected members of my county council — from all political parties — will not have had the chance to contribute to this debate.
Another criticism related to the range of changes proposed in the consultative documents. Many people in the education service thought that to introduce them in the time scale proposed, immediately following the implementation of parts of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, and bearing in mind the parts of that Act which have not yet been introduced, was likely to produce chaos and to be a programme for disaster. It says little for the Secretary of State's pious comments about wishing to offer wider involvement in education policies to everyone who is interested in education.
During the recess, I, with many other right hon. and hon. Members, made a point of consulting on the

proposals. The first clear message that I received from people in the education service, especially head teachers, was that they wanted a period of stability and calm to allow schools to cope with their existing problems of staffing levels, resources, auxiliary help, accommodation, and morale—especially among teachers — as well as the development of the GCSE. The latter is causing great upheaval because of the shortage of teachers, ancillary staff, equipment and finance. The evidence from my constituency is that there will be even more serious problems in the near future. A report published in May by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations confirmed that that is a problem in many other education authorities.
As well as being a Member of Parliament, I am chairman of a board of school governors in my constituency. It is extremely important to me because I started my public life as the secretary of a parent-teacher association. I am now chairman of the board of governors of the same school and have been involved with it for more than 20 years. The governors are conscientious, enthusiastic and responsible citizens. They have received no documents and have had no opportunity to consult. They will wish to consider the full implications of what is suggested in the legislation. I suspect that the same applies to boards of governors all over the country. They will all wish to participate in this planning exercise.
No one has yet mentioned the need for consultations with the teachers' unions. I understand—the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong — that the professionals in the education service have had no direct discussions with the Secretary of State. That is contemptible. The first thing that a wise industrialist or commercial operator who wanted to make fundamental changes in the service that he provided or the business that he ran would do would be to talk to the work force and line management. The Secretary of State believes that that is not necessarily appropriate.
Perhaps a quote from the general secretary of the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, Fred Smithies, might cover everything in connection with the consultation. He said:
The haste with which these proposals have been cobbled together and the unacceptably brief period of time that has been allowed for consultation is indicative of the Government's determinaton to push ahead with its education philosophy without properly addressing the educational consequences of such a move.
It appears to some, and certainly to me, that the Secretary of State has an eye on bigger things. He needs to show his dynamic leadership by producing ill-considered proposals. I should remind the Secretary of State that leadership means nothing if he does not have a majority of support from those who do not hold his views.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education arid Science is right to aim for a Bill in this Session. We have had a rather depressing period in education — during which there has been a great deal of trench warfare. Education is now trying to move forward. Essentially the Bill would help that process. Of course, I must accept that there has been less time for consultation than I might have liked in an ideal world. It will be particularly important when the Bill comes before the House that the Committee stage is treated — as I know it will be — with great


seriousness. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in charge of the Committee — and I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I hope that we shall see the kind of Committee stage which shows that the Government are prepared to be flexible and which will be a worthwhile process of consultation.
I acknowledge that in one respect I have already said that there is one item in the Government package that could, if necessary, be held over. In the debate on the Loyal Address, I said that I thought that proposals for the opt-out provision had not yet had the elucidation or received the acceptance that I would have liked. If that is still the case in a few weeks' time, there is no reason why that provision should not be held over. Otherwise, we should press on. Essentially we should press on because education as a whole is in a mood to get away from the trench warfare and enter a constructive phase.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to take a very positive and active role in his present job. It is worth remembering that section 1 of the Education Act 1944 refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to
secure the effective execution by the local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
Reference has been made to R. A. Butler, who was one of the greatest Education Ministers. Looking back to the debates about the Education Act 1944, it is interesting to see that Butler said:
it is high time the Minister and his office became more keen on taking the educational initiative themselves."—[Official Report, 21 March 1944; Vol. 398, c. 810.]
He also said that he proposed that the central authority should
lead boldly
and
not follow timidly.
That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing.
The curriculum in the new Bill will be the most important aspect of the new Bill. It is essential that we get the curriculum absolutely right. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be particularly sensitive to the points that have been put to him during the consultation process about the curriculum. One of those points relates to testing. That has aroused a good deal of uncertainty and apprehension.
I have been committed to testing for a long time. In 1976, I wrote a booklet called "The Act and the Partnership". I put forward the argument that we should have testing. I said that we should test the numeracy and literacy of all children at certain stages of their schooling, for example, at the ages of eight, 11 and 14. The ages chosen by my right hon. Friend are slightly different but I believe that the principle is the same. It is important to have a clear idea of what we are testing for. What is the testing process about? In my booklet, I stated:
The purpose of this"—
namely, testing—
would not be to provide a selection procedure for allocating children to one school or another. Nor, I hope, would it be used to establish or reinforce a pecking order among schools, or among their children. The aim is emphatically not to provide 'marks' for publication.

The object is rather more akin to the traditional school medical inspection. More precisely, it is to provide information about the progress of the individual child, so as to see whether he or she needs greater attention in one way or another; information, for use within the system only, about the school and the class within the school—again, so as to see if extra help is necessary; and, thirdly, national statistics (which might include information on what is happening in different parts of the country).
Today, it is no longer possible not to publish figures for schools as a whole. Even if one were to try to keep them secret — I do not think that one should do so — they would surely come out. In keeping with the emphasis on parents' rights to know what is going on in schools, it is right that such figures should be available. Nevertheless, the philosophy that I tried to put forward was right; we should see testing more as a diagnostic tool than as a kind of instrument for competition. I am not against competition — I am all for it in sports and many other areas—but our present task is simply to find out what is going on. After all, if the Secretary of State is to exercise his great responsibilities for education, he certainly needs to know what is happening in our schools.
Another point, which I hope will come out of the consultation process, is the need for greater curricular flexibility. I am sure that all hon. Members have heard pleas from groups of teachers, especially those with particular interests in mind. Home economics teachers have been fairly active in writing to us. I have also had letters from drama teachers and classics teachers. As it happens, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) will open a debate on the matter next Monday, so I shall not press the point.
It would be sad if the state education system is forced to remove classics from the curriculum. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be prepared to allocate more time to non-core and non-mainstream curricula elements. I devoutly hope that my right hon. Friend will be flexible.
When my right hon. Friend talks about the objectives of the matter, he should clearly say that one of the most crucial objectives in our education system is the transmission of the great things in our culture and civilisation from one generation to the next. That aim was not set out clearly enough in the consultative document, but at the end of the day it is most important. It is absolutely vital that such transmission should be available not only to the elite—those who are lucky enough to go to great public schools — but to every child in the country. I do not know whether the idea is to put some kind of stated objectives into the Bill; it is slightly against the tradition of English parliamentary drafting. Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State will make it clear that, above all, he is concerned about quality. If he avoids falling into the trap of rather dreary utilitarianism and the worship of alleged relevance, he will have the chance to produce the kind of Bill that will deserve to rank with the Butler Act.
There is not much time for discussion, but there is a need to get on with the matter rather than to delay the process for one more year. That is why I support my right hon. Friend's decision to bring the Bill before this Session of Parliament.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: I know of nobody outside the Government who welcomes the


short time allowed for consultation. All the letters that have received, and most of the consultation replies that I have seen in the Library today, reveal anger and disagreement with the Government about the length of consultation.
The Government say that the time allowed is acceptable because they sorted out the issue in their manifesto, but I cannot be the only person here or in the country who was deeply confused, to put it mildly, at the statements by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. Their statements were confusing and conflicting and certainly did not clarify the proposals.
The tragedy is that all this symbolises the Government's lack of respect and lack of care for the very groups they claim to champion — the parents, governors, students and children. The Government's attitude to them is, "We know best. Do as we say or you will suffer."
The Secretary of State's attitude this evening was like someone threatening with a shotgun and saying, "The process will be much easier if you help me pull the trigger." Is that the nature of the relationship which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to establish with those who care about education? Is that his attitude to parents, students, teachers and others in the community who are worried about the future? Such an attitude leaves the other side little say and even less influence.
Relationships are at the heart of any good education system. The Secretary of State seems uncomfortable with that relationship. A welcoming and warming relationship with parents and schools is crucial to the pre-school child. It is important to children throughout their school lives. It is crucial to those young people who are considering whether to stay in full-time education after the age of 16. It is also crucial to those who want to return to education, particularly if their earlier experiences were not fulfilling.
Process is as important in education as content. People need to be confident that they will learn how to read, write and think. The way in which they learn how to learn will determine what they are able to learn. Unless the process and the content go together, the content will never be put across. That is the tragedy. The Secretary of State seems to have no understanding of that.
A process that involves those who want the best education service possible for all our children is central to enabling us all to work together to provide opportunities. The Government forgot that in preparing their Bill. They forgot the importance of process — taking people with them and involving them every step of the way.
If the Government had taken everyone with them, they might have addressed the real issues. Instead, their proposals are seething with the dogmatic prejudices and fundamentalism of the new Right of the Tory party. There is a desperate need for changes and improvements.
The consensus is to look for more opportunities in education and in the role of our people, yet the Government present us with something that will cut opportunities and reduce the role of many people. There is a desperate need to encourage many more of our young children to stay in full-time education after 16. There is a desperate need to ensure that all children benefit from a rich and wide curriculum that matches their age, ability and aptitude as well as the needs of our society as we move into the 1990s. There is also a desperate need to improve opportunities for all our children by enabling them to take advantage of free school education if that is appropriate. There is still a need to ensure that we have a well-trained,

committed and enthusiastic teaching force that has the opportunity to be retrained to work effectively in all subjects.
The tragedy is that the Education Bill that we are promised addresses none of those issues. Far from being radical, the Secretary of State has been reactionary. In essence, he will reduce parental choice, have a much more centralised system of control, narrow the curriculum and reduce substantially the opportunity for the majority of our children and young people to benefit from a wide, open and free education service.
The Secretary of State has missed a golden opportunity. There is consensus on the need for changes and progress in our education system, but instead of seeking out that consensus and building upon it the right hon. Gentleman is creating conflict and opposition. That may be a legitimate political tactic, but when measured against the opportunities of our children and young people it is nothing short of criminal.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Mention has been made of the writings of Right-wing philosophers, the publication "No Turning Back'. and even Shakespeare. But I wonder why so few Labour Members did not study the New Statesman more carefully, which recently contained an article entitled:
Failing the masses. Passing the buck.
It said:
The Government have seized the initiative of change: while Labour is stuck in defence of its own past. Labour's ideological driving force is the pursuit of equality yet its policies have never really given priority to education despite its being one of the major sources of social immobility and inequality in Britain. Labour has allowed the Tories to steal the political initiative".
The fact is that too many of our average and below-average children are betrayed by the education system. We have one of the best education systems for high fliers, and our higher education is among the best in the world, but while 30 per cent. of pupils leave school with little or no qualifications, and 60 per cent. drop science or a foreign language at 14, there is absolutely no way in which the Government can refuse to act.
As for consultation and discussing "the process" in schools, I feel a great sense of unease. Last year we went from month to month with consultation on the replacement to Burnham and teachers' pay and conditions. That consultation led to disagreement and stalemate. The only thing on which there was agreement was that everybody disagreed with what the Government were doing. Consultation tends to reinforce the prejudices of the education establishment and the teaching profession—[Interruption.] It is interesting that Labour Members should pour scorn on the idea of improving the lot of the children who suffer under the present regime and that they should regard it as a laughable matter. I know that many Labour Members are more concerned with the trade union mentality of protecting the rights of those involved in producing education than they are with delivering the goods.
The national curriculum has been under discussion for many years. For the Government now to delay legislation would be an unforgiveable waste of the time of those who most need their education, perhaps now as never before. There is a glorious philosophy that children must never be tested for attainment, because one child might do well and


another badly; one child might feel a failure. That is why parents do not know where they are, children are not given the help that they need and standards are not set. I remind Opposition Members that that is what the Swann committee identified as a major reason for so many children from ethnic minorities doing badly in schools. Expectations are not set for them, so they do not rise to them. It is a crucial variable.
The head of the Secondary Examination Council the other day asked why so many people now run in marathons. The answer, he said, was that an expectation was set. We want to raise people's standards and bring out the best in them.
Local financial management is just another way of giving the heads more power. For how many years have many of us talked about the vital role of the head? Professor Michael Rutter, in his book "Fifteen Thousand Hours", compared 12 different schools in Southwark. What did he find was the crucial variable that accounted for some schools being so much more successful than others? It was the ethos of the school, and, particularly, the character and personality of the head — his ability to manage the school, set homework and ensure that lessons started on time. That is the nuts and bolts of education reform, and the way forward for our children.
In my constituency there have been some experiments in local financial control. They have been warmly welcomed, having been tried over several years. One school has enormously improved its word-processing facilities, computers and other equipment by making do with less supply cover and arranging for teachers to cover for themselves. Giving schools opportunities to make such decisions is the way forward.
Parental choice is crucial. Children do better if they have the confidence of their parents — if they are going to the school that their parents wanted them to attend. Opting out offers an alternative system to those who have not the resources to pay themselves.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he makes his final decisions, to look for a rather higher percentage than a 50 per cent. vote from parents. I should be happier with a two-thirds majority. If we are to ensure that head teachers such as the successor of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) as headmaster of Highbury Grove school can continue to provide the sort of education that parents want, in which teachers want to participate and in which pupils do well, we must find a way to release schools from the education authorities that are undermining the very ethos that is being sought.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to move forward swiftly with the legislation. The negative, hostile, backward-looking debate about consultation on these measures is yet another example of how conservative the education establishment is becoming. We owe it to all our children to ensure that they have the best possible opportunity to acquire the qualifications and skills that they need for the jobs and the citizenship of the future. My right hon. Friend's proposals offer an opportunity that we must follow up urgently. We want action—not words.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I sometimes wonder whether some Conservative Members

know how the consultation process works in education. A period for consultation has been allowed from the beginning of August to the end of September, but many governing bodies do not meet until the end of September. The same applies to many teachers' trade unions and parent-teacher groups.
When the schools reopen after the holiday, there follows a period of settling down and getting started again. As all those organisations do not generally meet until the end of September, hardly any of them have been given any time to respond in the detail that the proposals need. As there will be major and radical changes to our education system, parents have the right to consider the proposals in depth and to respond in detail.
I have in my hand a letter that was sent to the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the National Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations, the Parent-Teacher Associations of Wales and the Campaign for the Advancement of State Education. It protests about this Government's inadequate consultation on the proposals. Between them, they represent many thousands of parents, and they speak for many thousands of parents — the consumers.
I am also concerned about how the tests will affect children with special education needs. Have hon. Members heard about the self-fulfilling prophesy and its effect on children with special education needs?
There is also the problem that more children may want to go to a school than there are places for them. Who is to decide which children go to that school and which children do not? Will there have to be selection? Will it be for the governing body to decide?
Many important and fundamental questions have not been answered, yet the Government have moved an amendment that congratulates themselves on the consultation period. I do not know how they can congratulate themselves on a consultation period that is no more than a sham and that provides the parents of those who are directly affected with no adequate say on proposals that will affect the future education of their children.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: Two criticisms have been made in the debate, one of which goes to the heart of our education system. We must remember that this Government have been in charge of the country's education system for the last eight years. It is about time that Conservative Members recognised that what is wrong with the country's education system is this Government's education policy. The second criticism is that we were told that we picked the wrong issue — that we concentrated on procedure rather than on substantive proposals. But surely we picked the right issue. Conservative Member after Conservative Member has told us that the proposals have been introduced in the name of greater parental involvement and freedom, and that if one believes in freedom one consults. However, this Government have to be criticised for their lack of consultation.
During the last few months the Government have been more concerned about stifling debate and proving that debate and comment are irrelevant than about offering genuine opportunities for parents, teachers, local authorities and the churches to comment and to influence the discussion. In no way could this be clearer than in the practicalities of the consultation process — at most two


months on important documents. In the case of the majority of the documents, the consultation process was held during the long summer holidays. No wonder that the Government have been criticised by parent-teacher associations and local education authorities, both Conservative and Labour.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: No, I do not intend to give way.
The Secretary of State referred to his proposals as great educational reforms, but an uncharacteristic modesty in his case prevented him from engaging in meaningful debate and discussion with the public.

Mr. Coombs: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Fatchett: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I do not intend to give way.
In addition to restricting the consultation process and making it difficult, the Government have made it clear that they are not prepared to listen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) commented on the Secretary of State's speech at the Conservative party conference. It may be forgiveable and understandable that in the atmosphere of that conference the Secretary of State felt that he had to use those words. Indeed, no Secretary of State, with the Prime Minister sitting at his right hand, would have done otherwise; no Secretary of State in this Government has the courage to do otherwise. Perhaps we can understand and forgive those comments, but, sadly, the Secretary of State was at it again only last week. After meeting local government leaders — Conservative and Labour — the Secretary of State was reported as saying that the Bill would not be altered whatever the critics said. So much for an open door, so much for an open mind and so much for consultation.
With typical dogmatic arrogance the Government have dismissed as unrepresentative organisations that have had the audacity to criticise. That fate befell the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations. That moderate, non-party political organisation, which speaks for parents, was dismissed out of hand because it did not say what the Secretary of State wanted to hear. That is typical of the Government and the consultation process.
The Government may respond to our criticisms by saying that their behaviour on these proposals is no different from that in other respects, but that is scarcely a plea in mitigation. For instance, if a bank robber says that on previous occasions he has got away with it, he cannot say that he was innocent on the occasion when he was caught in the bank carrying out the robbery, but that is this Government's excuse. Maybe the Government should plead that that they are innocent or that they adopt the same practice in other contexts, but continuous bad practice is no excuse for what the Government have done to our children or for what they propose to do to our education system. Nor is it relevant for the Government to say that their proposals are firm or that, as the right hon. Member Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, everybody knew what they were about.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that the proposals were so simple that they were underlined and that they had blue edges. But that overlooks the difficult process of conception that occurred during the general election. The

Secretary of State was saying one thing, but the Prime Minister was saying something else. We saw the unlikely sight of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), as chairman of the Conservative party, acting as a conciliator and peace-maker between the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, which was a most unlikely role for the gentleman. To say that the proposals were firm is not true and has never been so; some of the detail is open to serious comment and discussion.
When we look at the proposals for ILEA we encounter a different problem. Parents in London are to be allowed a short time to comment—five weeks—so in that respect they have fared no worse than parents in other parts of the country, but there is one substantial difference. Parents in London may have an education authority thrust upon them without any consultation with individual parents. We are told that parents should have a right to vote on opt-out procedures and a right to vote in other circumstances; that is the language of parental freedom. Why does that language not apply with regard to practice in London and the boroughs that make up the Inner London education authority? Why is it right to leave a decision to councillors in certain circumstances but riot others? Why will the Secretary of State not consult parents in London? We know the answer: if he consulted parents by ballot he would lose and the proposals would be torpedoed.
We may have been a little remiss in not asking for a longer consultation on the London proposals. We should have recognised the record of the Secretary of State. When he chaired a committee looking at inner London education a few years ago he said that the only proposal he could not consider was the very proposal that, as Secretary of State, he is now suggesting. Consistency and principle do not run very deep for this Secretary of State. Perhaps we should have asked for more time so that London parents could have had an opportunity to allow their voices to be heard.
We are told that the process of consultation is not necessary because the Government's proposals are firm. How firm are they? For example, how firm are they in relation to testing? Who will win the argument? Will it be the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister? Is it to be diagnostic testing, to which the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) referred, or is it to be competitive testing which is favoured by the Prime Minister and Right-wing Back Benchers? Will it be success or failure for our children at the age of seven? If it is failure, that means, within the system favoured by the Government, failure at the age of 11, 14 and 16. The child is doomed to failure at the age of seven.
The Government are not clear on the matter of grant-maintained opt-out schools. How many are there to be? Are they to be encouraged? At first the Secretary of Stale said that there would be only a few. In an interview in The Independent the Prime Minister said that there would be thousands and that they would be encouraged by an independent trust. The Secretary of State then changed his mind and said that "some" schools would opt out. Is not the word "some" the very sort of word one would associate with this Secretary of State? It is limited enough to ensure that informed educational opinion is not too antagonistic and it is elastic enough to ensure that the Secretary of State remains in office. He is doing the Prime Minister's bidding yet again. Parents have a right to know the Government's intentions.
The same is true of the core curriculum. As has been said, it is an idea that runs deep in the Labour party. If modesty allowed, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would tell the House that he was probably the author of the deep and meaningful proposals for a core curriculum. Modesty prevents him from doing that. The Secretary of State has had an opportunity to move by consensus to a national curriculum, but what has he done? He has united people not in support of a core curriculum but in opposition to it. At no stage has he recognised the educational difficulties that that presents. That poses problems for teachers, parents and, above all else, for Ministers. I saw the comment in The Times Educational Supplement on 16 October, just two short weeks ago. It said:
Poor Mrs. Rumbold. What a bad time she is having. Two weeks ago she sought to convince the Schools Curriculum Development Conference of the failure of the education system by serving up anecdotes about spelling mistakes and typographical errors. Last week it was the primary heads' conference at Coventry … which enjoyed the benefit of her judicious comments. Her gloss on the national curriculum consultation paper certainly helped to raise the temperature of a group of professionals among whom the Government might have expected to number many friends. A disastrous combination of patronising condescension and palpable ignorance antagonised most of her audience.
That is not a Socialist publication. I do not blame the Minister; I blame the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for sending the Minister without a clear brief and clear definition of what the proposals are about.
Political freedom in this country has always depended on Governments, regardless of the size of their majority, being prepared to consult and to listen. That is the essential fabric of our democratic virtues and practice. If ever there was an area in which decision-making should be based on consultation and consensus, it is education, because here we are shaping not just the nation's future but the next generation and our children's future. With a Government committed to dogma and the ideology of a competitive market, the hopes for children and the wishes of their parents and teachers have been scandalously ignored.
As I travelled through the west midlands to attend an education meeting the other day, I saw an advertisement describing a particular brand of beer as "untouched by progress". If Saatchi and Saatchi had thought of that slogan, they might still be the Conservative party's public relations agency. It also struck me as being the most apt and correct description of the Secretary of State's education proposals. Untouched by progress, they will at best leave our children in the same state. At worst, they will leave them with dramatically reduced education opportunities. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I suppose that we could have expected this debate to prove an interesting if somewhat arid precursor to the wider debate that will take place throughout this parliamentary Session. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I repeat the points that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made at the beginning of the debate in relation to the enormous interest shown in the

consultation documents. A large number of copies have been issued to a great number of interested people, not just individuals but organisations, including local education authorities, churches, parent organisations and many others. The claim that insufficient time was allowed for consultation has been disproved by the weight of the responses received by the Department. I remind the Opposition that if they really intend to read all those responses they will have to set aside several days and nights, if not weeks, to consider the two van loads of responses currently reposing in the Library.

Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No. I have only a short time in which to respond to the debate.
All this has acknowledged that in the present phase we have merely started our consultations. My right hon. Friend confirmed today that he has been very ready to meet organisations wishing to make representations.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Endlessly.

Mrs. Rumbold: Endlessly, as my right hon. Friend rightly says.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) asked whether teachers' organisations would have the opportunity to consult. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be meeting those organisations and discussing matters with them. We believe that such discussions are valuable and they will continue during the passage of the Bill. There are, of course, other channels of representation during any parliamentary process which, even in my gloomiest moments, I believe that the Opposition may yet consider and seek to make some constructive contribution. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central asked why the consultation period for the ILEA proposal was not longer. It is, in a sense, a local and not a national issue, and in any event it has provoked some 5,000 detailed responses, which are currently being studied by our Department.
I remind Opposition Members that the councils that may opt out are democratically elected people, bodies which, no doubt, will take account of the representations and local opinions that are put to them. I understand that that procedure is already being undertaken in the boroughs of Westminster and Wandsworth, which have shown an interest in the possibility of making their boroughs local education authorities.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mr. Rumbold: I am not giving way.
I remind Opposition Members that ultimately the decision will rest with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the order. Parliament will debate that order and decide whether to approve it in a true democratic way. Therefore, Opposition Members should look carefully at what they are saying about our proposals for ILEA and agree with us that there has been adequate consultation.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I am sorry. I shall not give way. I want to continue to address the debate and answer some of the interesting points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Predictably, there have been positive and negative responses. My hon. Friends have made some extremely good and sensible contributions, with positive points and backed up with good argument.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) rightly affirmed that the people who matter in the debate on our proposals are the parents, the children and the teachers. He made the most valuable point that Opposition Members have derided consultations by their own actions in the past. I shall give one instance of what happened. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North said, the Labour party's intention to abolish direct grant status was announced in its October 1974 manifesto. In March 1975 the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced:
The Government have decided that the time has come to implement the pledge in the Labour Party Election Manifesto to stop the present system of direct grant schools."—[Official Report, 11 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 271.]
That was a Labour Secretary of State.
No consultation paper was issued between the election and the announcement. The change was made by order — the Direct Grant Grammar Schools (Cessation of Grant) Regulations 1975. A circular was issued explaining the effect of the regulations on the direct grant schools and the options open to them. The abolition of the direct grant status implemented a recommendation of the Public Schools Commission's second report of 1970. It was asked by the Labour Government in 1967—

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall not give way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Frit. [interrupution.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Rumbold.

Mrs. Rumbold: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The commission was asked in 1967 to look at the future of direct grant schools. I am certainly not frit. I am simply answering the debate as I am entitled to. I shall continue to answer it in the way that I wish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (M r. Pawsey) was correct to emphasise that there is a clear mandate—not directed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—to carry out the promises made in our manifesto on education reforms. He also said that no meetings could be convened that were not necessary. That is also my experience. If councils want to convene a meeting of the education committee or the council as a whole, most can do so. If any Opposition Members would like to look at the record of some of the councils that are currently hung councils, they would see that many have extraordinary council meetings and additional education meetings as and when they feel like it. So the argument that these meetings could not have been called is a little thin.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) asked a direct question and I want to answer it. He asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be a member of the Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with me when I confirm that he will indeed be leading the Committee considering the Bill, which is his Bill. I must also say that my right hon. Friend's role is to lead boldly rather than to follow timidly. I have noted carefully what my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said about testing, and I hope that I can reassure him that he will be comforted when he sees our own inclinations on that subject. Similarly, we have looked and shall further look carefully at any consultative

responses that we receive — as we have clearly said all the way through that we shall do on the national curriculum.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) was right to point out that there have been many examples in the past of expectations in our schools that are far too low. She examined each of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has put before the country and rightly pointed out that many people support them wholeheartedly.
A number of negative points have been made by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. That was to be expected. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) accused us by saying that parents on governing bodies thought it ironical that they did not have enough time; but they were clearly ignoring the assurances that m) right hon. Friend has been giving them. We are saying clearly that there will be a continuation of these consultations, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to some of the responses—

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman should listen to the responses that I have given rather than argue with me at this stage.
The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) accused the Government of neglecting to take the consultation process to people within the education system. That is not so: we are conversing at length with people in the education service. If there is any question of them thinking otherwise, I suggest that that is because they do not wish to know that we are busy listening to what they have to say. I am glad that the hon. Lady emphasised the point that we should work with the professionals in the education service, because we fully accept it. I hope., therefore, that when she comes to the Committee considering the Education Bill she will join the Government in taking up every improvement that we have offered to the education service and supporting them, as she seems to be so keen on many of the proposals that my right hon. Friend has made.
To the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I say that many of the governing bodies have responded, and he would find it interesting to note that they are still responding and we are still listening to them. The whole argument from the Opposition seems to have been centred on some slender evidence that the Government have not consulted and are not listening. I should be interested to hold the debate once again if' we had some proof that Opposition Members had looked at the responses and were satisfied at the way in which our consultations had gone. If they wish to discover whether the proposals have come out in favour of or against the responses, they should read them. As I said at the outset, this debate is a precursor of things to come. Sadly, it has focused on procedure rather than on substance and that points to the conclusion that the Opposition know that they must oppose in a pavlovian way the reforms of education.

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 325.

Division No. 34]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Fatchett, Derek


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Faulds, Andrew


Allen, Graham
Fearn, Ronald


Alton, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Flannery, Martin


Ashdown, Paddy
Flynn, Paul


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foulkes, George


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fraser, John


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Barron, Kevin
Galbraith, Samuel


Battle, John
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bermingham, Gerald
Graham, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Blair, Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Blunkett, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Boateng, Paul
Grocott, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Hardy, Peter


Bradley, Keith
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Douglas


Buchan, Norman
Hinchliffe, David


Buckley, George
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Holland, Stuart


Callaghan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hood, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Canavan, Dennis
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Hoyle, Doug


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kilfedder, James


Crowther, Stan
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cummings, J.
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leadbitter, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Leighton, Ron


Darling, Alastair
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livsey, Richard


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dobson, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Doran, Frank
Loyden, Eddie


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAllion, John


Dunnachie, James
McAvoy, Tom


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McFall, John


Eadie, Alexander
McLeish, Henry


Eastham, Ken
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McTaggart, Bob


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mahon, Mrs Alice





Marek, Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Salmond, Alex


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meale, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Michael, Alun
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Rhodri
Spearing, Nigel


Morley, Elliott
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Murphy, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, William
Wall, Pat


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walley, Ms Joan


Patchett, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert N.


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Radice, Giles
Wilson, Brian


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Anthony


Reid, John
Wray, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robinson, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Frank Cook.


Rooker, Jeff



Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Allason, Rupert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Amos, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Burns, Simon


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Burt, Alistair


Ashby, David
Butcher, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Butler, Chris


Atkinson, David
Butterfill, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carrington, Matthew


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chapman, Sydney


Bellingham, Henry
Chope, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cormack, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cran, James


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Critchley, Julian


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Dover, Den


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Tony






Dykes, Hugh
Jackson, Robert


Eggar, Tim
Janman, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Jessel, Toby


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evennett, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Fallon, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Farr, Sir John
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Favell, Tony
Key, Robert


Fenner, Dame Peggy
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knapman, Roger


Forman, Nigel
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Forth, Eric
Knowles, Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Knox, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Franks, Cecil
Lang, Ian


Freeman, Roger
Latham, Michael


French, Douglas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fry, Peter
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gale, Roger
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Gardiner, George
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gill, Christopher
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lightbown, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lilley, Peter


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Goodlad, Alastair
Lord, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Gorst, John
McCrindle, Robert


Gow, Ian
Macfarlane, Neil


Gower, Sir Raymond
MacGregor, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maclean, David


Greenway, John (Rydale)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gregory, Conal
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Madel, David


Grist, Ian
Major, Rt Hon John


Ground, Patrick
Malins, Humfrey


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mans, Keith


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Maples, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marland, Paul


Hampson, Dr Keith
Marlow, Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hannam, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mates, Michael


Harris, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hayes, Jerry
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mellor, David


Hayward, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Miller, Hal


Heddle, John
Mills, Iain


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moate, Roger


Hill, James
Monro, Sir Hector


Hind, Kenneth
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Holt, Richard
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Moss, Malcolm


Howard, Michael
Moynihan, Hon C.


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Mudd, David


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Neale, Gerrard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Needham, Richard


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Neubert, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Newton, Tony


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hunter, Andrew
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Irvine, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Irving, Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jack, Michael
Paice, James





Patnick, Irvine
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pawsey, James
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Sumberg, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Summerson, Hugo


Portillo, Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Price, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Redwood, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Renton, Tim
Thorne, Neil


Rhodes James, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thurnham, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Tracey, Richard


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rost, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walden, George


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walters, Dennis


Scott, Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Warren, Kenneth


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Watts, John


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Whitney, Ray


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Sims, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilkinson, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wilshire, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Speed, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Speller, Tony
Wood, Timothy


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Woodcock, Mike


Squire, Robin
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Stevens, Lewis

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House believes that the interests of the nation's children require that there should be no delay in the introduction of the Government's proposals for education reform, which have been endorsed by the electorate and provide an essential programme of action to deliver wider choice to parents, greater autonomy for schools and colleges to manage their resources in the best interests of the pupils and students, and higher standards of performance throughout the education system; congratulates the Government on the extent of its consultation and its willingness to continue consultation on the details of its proposals; and welcomes the scale of response to the consultation.

Chancellor of the Exchequer (Statement)

Mr. Gordon Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear from the events of this evening that we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.]—who is prepared to speak to the press, to speak to the stock exchange, to speak in the City, to ask for representations to be made to the financial institutions about the sale of BP, and who has invited representation from abroad as well as from home, but who is not prepared to come to the House to answer questions about the serious problems that are worrying hon. Members constituents.
We have been told of the serious consequences of the stock exchange collapse for jobs and industry. Why is the Chancellor not prepared to come to the House and answer questions about the problems facing industry and about interest rates in this country? Why, when we know that the Chancellor has been in the building this evening, is he not prepared to come into the Chamber to speak?
Why is the standard bearer of free market forces, who has been defending free market forces for the eight years of this Government, unprepared to come here and defend free market forces when they have been exposed for what they are?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not have a rerun of the previous points of order.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. I hope that we will not have a re-run of the points of order that we had earlier this evening. They are not points of order that I can answer. I think that the whole House had better wait to see what happens tomorrow.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it not disgraceful and demeaning that, given the problems—[Interruption.]—the only thing that the Opposition can do is to try to make mean, peevish, small-minded political capital out of it. Is that not one of the reasons why they did so badly at the last general election and why they are failing?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we should get on with the fisheries debate.

Mr. Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to listen to a further re-run of points of order that have nothing to do with me.

Mr. Banks: This is a different point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a genuinely different point of order?

Mr. Banks: Yes, Sir. We have reached the point at which this has been reduced to the level of low farce. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is treating the House with

contempt. He was in the House at 8.27 pm, moving exceedingly fast. Therefore, one can only assume that he was probably on his way to another dinner appointment. It is outrageous that he cannot be at the Dispatch Box to make a statement, if indeed it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not Frank Larsen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know nothing about the Chancellor having been in the building. He certainly was not in the Chamber.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here earlier this evening.

Mr. Faulds: Yes, I was.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity then. If he had been here earlier, he would have known that I cannot do anything about the matter. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman. He is the last hon. Member whom I shall hear.

Mr. Faulds: I was here a little earlier. I am just a little degree surprised that you did not notice me, Mr. Speaker. I was obviously too quiet for once. I shall remedy that now. Some hours have passed since the last exchanges on this matter. I do think — I hate to lecture you, Sir — that you have a very grave responsibility as the Speaker in terms of what happens in the conduct of government. We all know — it is no good your nodding your head — that frequently there are private exchanges behind your Chair. All that is needed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to listen to this nonsense.

Mr. Faulds: It is not nonsense. Where is the Chancellor? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Sit down. The hon. Gentleman must not allege that I take part in private discussions behind the Chair. I have been in the Chair most of today. The hon. Gentleman should make his point of order.

Mr. Faulds: The point of order is very simple. A grave crisis threatens our country. We have a Chancellor who is supposedly responsible for the economic policies of this country. He has not the guts or the gumption to come down here. I think that a little private word from you, Sir, might rectify the matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman had a fair run this afternoon.

Sea Fisheries

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move,
That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1135) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if the following motions were considered at the same time:
That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1136) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
That the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1134) dated 1 July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the three statutory instruments be taken together?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—a genuine point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot deal with matters over which I have absolutely no responsibility. I cannot get the Chancellor to come here this evening. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is now merely taking time out of the debate in which many hon. Members who have fishing interests wish to take part.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We once again arrive at a situation in which the Chair is placed in an extremely invidious position by, sometimes, the action, or, more frequently, the inaction or cowardice of the Government.
For some days past, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, various efforts have been made by the Opposition to ensure that the Government, in the person of the Chancellor, come before the elected House of Commons to make a statement to the nation on the Government's position with regard to the implications for the real economy of the collapse of the stock exchange. True to form, the Chancellor has evaded all responsibilities. If we arrive at a position on a Monday night in which you are continually bombarded by points of order from both sides of the House—Hansard will show that earlier today and this evening contributions were made from both sides of the House—it is directly a consequence of the failure of the Government in a democracy to make themselves at least answerable, if not properly accountable, to the House of Commons.
The force of what has been said today from both sides of the House means that in the course of tomorrow the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the responsibility of coming before the House to explain the Government's view on two issues. The first concerns the response in terms of interest rates and other matters over which the Government have influence and responsibility. In such matters the Government should at least account for themselves to the House. Secondly, the Govenment should explain their view on the flotation of BP shares and the privatisation issue. This is of interest not only to would-be purchasers of those shares but to the economy in general, the whole future of investment, and to the structure and possibility of our success.
In these matters it is essential—not only in respect of your position, Mr. Speaker, as the neutral observer and keeper of order, but for the whole country — for the Government to be responsive, if not responsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point and I am certain that it will have been noted by the Leader of the House who is on the Front Bench. I call Mr. Gummer.

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot take any more points of order on this topic.

Mr. Maxton: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker. During previous points of order I understand that you asked whether it would he for the convenience of the House to take the three fisheries instruments together in one debate lasting one and a half hours. I had great difficulty in hearing your remarks. The House did not have an opportunity to decide, so I think that it should be given another opportunity to say whether it wishes to do that.
If the normal conventions concerning statements are not to be obeyed, why should we agree to the convention of taking three statutory instruments together?

Mr. Speaker: I understood that it was for the convenience of the House to take the three instruments together. I put the Question and received consent. I again call Mr. Gummer.

Mr. Gummer: The three measures are necessary to bring Community regulations into effect in the United Kingdom and to enable us to benefit from Community funding. It is therefore sensible for the House to take the three together.
In terms of expenditure, the fishing vessels grants scheme is the most important. The scheme will enable the Fisheries Ministers to grant-aid the construction and modernisation of fishing vessels with the objective of bringing our fishing fleet up to date. Our stocks are limited and we cannot always fish to capacity. For that reason we have to be careful that modernisation of the fleet does not significantly increase fishing capacity.
The new scheme involves a higher rate of grant than its predecessor for vessels less than 33 m in length. The grant will be 30 per cent., the maximum allowed by the scheme, rather than the 25 per cent. in the earlier scheme. The United Kingdom pressed strongly for this higher rate at the Fisheries Council meeting last December to compensate for the reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the available grant from Community funds.
I am glad to say that we won that fight and it is a great help to the English, Scottish and Welsh fleets. I am happy to say that we were also successful in maintaining at 50 per cent. the overall maximum grant in most areas.
The scheme also provides that financial assistance should be given only to vessels which are constructed or modernised in member states. I am sure that the provision will be welcomed by our boat builders, who face stiff opposition from subsidised yards in non-EC countries.
It would be possible to go through the detailed provisions and answer in advance the questions that hon. Members will no doubt wish to ask, but it may be for the convenience of the House if I restrain myself and answer at the end, with the House's permission, the matters raised in the debate.
I should, however, illustrate the scale of financial aid that has been available over the three years from 1984 to 1986. United Kingdom fishermen benefited from about £23·5 million in grants and almost £11·5 million in loans, plus £22·5 million of Community funding. The new scheme will allow the process to continue and will allow fishermen to plan ahead with confidence.
The objective of the second instrument is to encourage vessel owners to investigate new fishing opportunities. I am anxious that our industry should be given every encouragement to explore the potential of new fishing grounds, especially in the south Atlantic. I am, therefore, pleased to be able to report that several companies have either applied for assistance or have indicated their intention to do so. The grants are restricted to vessels of 18 m and over. The Community will pay 20 per cent. of the approved cost of exploratory voyages and we shall contribute 10 per cent.
The Council regulations also provide member states with the option of continuing to pay grants for the decommissioning or laying-up of fishing vessels, but we shall not be carrying on with those measures in the UK.
The final instrument provides fish farmers in Great Britain with a national grant rate of up to 10 per cent. to enable them to qualify for Community aid under Council regulation 4028/86.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that grants are available under the FEOGA scheme for fish farms in the west of Scotland and that Kyle and Carrick, Cunninghame and other coastal areas can get 40 per cent. grants—which is a helpful level—but Cumnock and Doon Valley can get grants of only 25 per cent., even though that is an area of high unemployment?
Will the Minister review the level of FEOGA grants—

Mr. Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend is being optimistic.

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend may wonder how fish farming can be carried out in Cumnock and Doon Valley, which is landlocked. I assure him and the Minister, who, I suspect, has fished a loch or two in his time, that it is possible, and a major scheme in my constituency could go ahead if the higher rate of grant were available. Will the Minister give me an undertaking — I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years and would accept his personal undertaking — that he will examine whether grant levels could be reviewed in the light of the anomaly that has arisen? A landlocked council has been able to carry out such activities; that may not have been envisaged when the scheme was introduced.

Mr. Gummer: I should like to have known the hon. Gentleman long enough for him not to make the mistake of suggesting that I have cast a fly in any loch anywhere. I have no intention of giving the undertaking for which he asked, because the Community suggested that certain areas needed particular help. I understood that the Opposition were keen on such policies. Therefore, efforts have been made to give that extra help to certain parts of Scotland and not to other parts. My experience of extra help is that those who do not get it are all too ready to complain that it is not spread to them.
There is no doubt in my holding out any hope to the hon. Gentleman that we could change the areas that are covered. They have been agreed and it would be difficult to reopen the consideration. A great deal of negotiating was done to ensure that part of Scotland was helped, and I am sure that he would want at least some of Scotland to get extra help. I cannot suggest that we should be likely to bring in the whole of Scotland or even that part with which the hon. Gentleman has such close affinity.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware — and, if not, will he consult his hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), who will confirm it — that the Cumnock and Sanquhar travel-to-work area has the highest unemployment in the country? It is in that area that the project is envisaged. The reason that Cumnock and Sanquhar was not included was a genuine oversight — a misunderstanding — and I do not blame the Minister. I merely ask him, in his present benevolent mood, to agree to re-examine the matter.
The Minister and I both understand the intricacies and difficulties of the European community, and we know that it is very difficult to reopen such issues. But the Minister must realise that if issues are important enough, we expect Ministers to take them up within the Community. All I ask tonight is that the Minister does not dismiss the matter out of hand at 10.34 pm, but agrees to take it away, have a look at it and let me know whether it is possible to review the position.

Mr. Gummer: I am anxious not to mislead either the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) or his constituents. I therefore do not wish to give any undertaking this evening that might lead the hon. Gentleman's constituents to believe that there was any realistic possibility of the lines being redrawn.
It would also be churlish of me not to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as he has raised the matter, I shall examine it, as he would expect me to. However, I hope that he will not place too much upon that promise. The results of our negotiations were not results of decisions idly reached. They were hard-fought and long-run, and, although I should be happy to be found wrong, I doubt that it would be possible to redraw those lines.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to give way, but may I make one short comment first?
One of the purposes of debating instruments such as these is, ideally, for the Minister to make a short speech at the beginning, allow hon. Members to put their points, and then — with the House's permission — answer those points later, rather than a series of interruptions taking place. I realise that such instruments give rise to a good many individual, local problems, rather than more widespread issues.

Mr. Alec Salmond: I recall that, in 1976, European Commission policy identified the whole of Scotland as a sensitive area, particularly dependent on the fishing industry. It actually identified north Britain, but I think that that meant Scotland. The Minister's negotiations in Europe seen to have taken us from the whole of Scotland being identified as a sensitive area to just some of Scotland being so identified.

Mr. Gummer: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has followed the negotiations with the care


with which he suggests that he did. If he had done so, he would realise that no part of England, Wales or Scotland was included in the original proposals. It was only through a strenuous fight on behalf of Scotland by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, our hon. Friends in Scotland and myself that we achieved our end. Far from being a diminution, it represents a considerable increase in the area covered.
In those discussions I was bound to say to many of my colleagues that, when we had won what we sought, we would end up with those who were not included feeling that they had been left out. Not only fishermen in other parts of Scotland, but many English fishermen, some of them from areas of higher unemployment than the parts to which we refer, feel that they, too, are disadvantaged.
There is a problem whenever special help is to be given to special areas. I am perfectly prepared to support the giving of such help, but I warn the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to tread carefully. Many parts of the United Kingdom could put up very good cases, and some of them are not in the middle of a land mass.

Mr. James Wallace: This matter is capable of solution. I fail to understand how grants for seagoing vessels could possibly he made available to anyone who lives in a landlocked area.

Mr. Foulkes: Perhaps the Minister will confirm that differential rates of grant apply to sea-going vessels but that that part which relates to fish farming sets a maximum of 10 per cent., with no differential area being designated anywhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gummer: Sometimes it is better to allow hon. Members to dig the hole that they have set out to dig rather than to underline their digging of it.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) suggested that his landlocked constituency should be considered, even though it is not one of the great sea fishing centres of our nation. The hon. Gentleman has admitted that part of his constituency does not lie on the coast, and it can hardly be said to qualify for fishing vessel grants. I restrained myself from making that point, in case there are representatives of the hon. Gentleman's local newspaper in the Press Gallery. I have decided to think about it, but I doubt whether that will lead me to do something about the landlocked part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
These measures have specific effects in particular parts of the country, those that lie on the coast. During the debates hon. Members will naturally wish to raise particular points and I shall be very happy to answer them.
This package of three schemes will enable our sea fish and fish farming industries to continue the important process of modernisation and development. They are mainly concerned with traditional fishing, but for the first time there is an extension into the fish farming area called, in European Community lingo, aquaculture. We ought to be pleased about that, because an increasing part of the market for fish is now provided by fish farmers, and the United Kingdom has increasing expertise in that area.
It is important that the United Kingdom should benefit from the significant levels of financial aid that are available from Community funds. Agreement to these measures will enable us to do so. The schemes form an important part of our fisheries policy, and I commend them to the House for approval.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: These orders deal with financial support for the fishing industry in Great Britain. That was the subject of Sir Gordon Downey's recent report, to which I shall refer in a few minutes.
I welcome this opportunity to debate and comment on the proposals. Although we welcome the orders, we do not do so unreservedly, and I shall outline some of my reservations, criticisms and disappointments in what I promise will be a brief speech. As always, I shall try to be an honestly awkward critic.
All right hon. and hon. Members want to protect and promote the interests of this indigenous industry. The same is true of the increasingly important fish farming industry, and the Minister was right to emphasise the importance of the third order that relates to fish farming. The statutory instrument that deals with financial assistance for exploratory voyages and joint ventures is the least vital of the three, although, in its modest way, it may have some significance for the owners of larger vessels. How many vessel owners have sought such assistance in the recent past? I look forward to some enlightenment from the Minister on that point.
This is a useful if modest measure. It may encourage owners of larger vessels to undertake voyages to catch species of fish that are as yet not commercially viable. As a measure it may be more widely used by owners in other EEC fishing nations in the Mediterranean basin and off the west coast of Africa.
The statutory instrument that is of major importance to our fishermen is the one that deals with grants for the modernisation and renewal of vessels. This is a particularly important instrument for fishermen who own and crew ageing vessels, or who own boats that urgently require modernisation. It is right and proper that priority should be given to the replacement or modernisation of such vessels. Typically, a new vessel is far more productive than one of similar overall length that was built 20 or 30 years ago. Recently, in Stornoway, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who I am sure will try to catch your eye tonight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I spoke to the skipper of a small fishing boat that was built for his father in 1947. I have no doubt that that skipper would be delighted to replace his elderly vessel with a new one if he could afford it, but we must remember that new vessels are astoundingly expensive.
I welcome statutory instrument No. 1135, but I urge the Government to reduce the time that a fisherman applicant must endure before he receives approval to go ahead with his order. That is important for the fisherman and for the small shipyards that build these vessels.
It is argued that these measures assist with the reconciliation between fishing capacity and fishing opportunities. Having said that — we are dealing with financial support for the industry — I must point out that I am deeply disappointed with the Government's decision to discontinue the decommissioning scheme. Some 225 vessels were decommissioned over a period of three years at a net cost to the United Kingdom of just over £15 million. In his report, "Financial Support for the Fishing Industry in Great Britain", which was published in July, Sir Gordon Downey said:
Over half of the expenditure was incurred on 15 large freezer trawlers. Two of these trawlers were brought back into


the industry temporarily for the minimum period to qualify for decommissioning grants averaging over £½ million. Ten of the boats were subsequently sold for sums ranging up to £900,000. None was scrapped. On 30 April 1987, after the NAO had completed their investigations, the Minister of State for Fisheries announced in a Parliamentary written reply that"—
he—
would not continue with the scheme for decommissioning.".
That is a matter for major regret. An abuse of the decommissioning scheme occurred when those trawler owners received that amount of money, but that legal abuse should not have led to its abrogation.
We must maintain a modest decommissioning scheme that cannot be abused by the larger trawler companies. There is no other sensible way to restructure — in plain English, to reduce—the size of the fleet. A restructuring of the fleet cannot be achieved by our licensing scheme because those licences are gaining in financial value month by month. I believe that the Government must think again about their decision to decommission the decommissioning scheme.
Incidentally, why were trawler company fishermen never given a decommissioning grant? The nation has paid for the decommissioning of large trawlers but not their crews. Skippers, mates, deckhands, engineers, cooks et al were simply slotted into the dole queues with precious little, if any, redundancy pay. For 19 years my brother Leslie worked as a deckhand and, latterly, as a mate and skipper for one of those firms and, when it decided he was surplus to requirements, it gave him the princely sum of £551.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: He was lucky. Most people got nothing.

Dr. Godman: As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, he was luckier than some but he certainly was not lucky to work for 19 years in what must be the most dangerous industrial occupation in the United Kingdom and receive that sort of squalid sum when his services were dispensed with. The trawler companies were given financial assistance by the state to build and decommission their vessels. Their employees got next to nothing or nothing for their years of hard work and loyalty.
I shall refer to fish farming and statutory instrument No. 1134. Naturally, I am delighted that the state gives assistance to that growing industry. There are exciting developments taking place throughout the whole of the United Kingdom's fish farming industry. In Scotland fish farming is one of the fastest growing industries. In that context, Scotland ought one day to overtake Norway as the principal fish farming industrial nation in the north Atlantic. I was in Norway recently visiting fish farms and,

although it has a good lead over us, I believe that we have one supreme marketing advantage: Scottish salmon. Recent estimates by the Scottish Development Agency and others suggest that farmed salmon production could treble over the next few years. At this moment the industry in Scotland employs over 1,000 people in full-time and part-time work in what are remote communities. It is essential that the development of the industry is carefully controlled. Greater scope must be given for local involvement and the statutory instrument must pave the way for that. Other industries such as tourism and fishing must not be harmed by an expansion of marine fish farming. Fishermen, for their part, have no desire to impede the development of fish farming, but it must be sensibly controlled. A sympathetic account has to be taken of fishing activities be they static or mobile.
I know that lighting and marking regulations are spelled out when the Crown Estate Commissioners issue leases for fish farms, and I know that that advice is buttressed by advice obtained from the Department of Transport and the lighthouse boards. Nevertheless, we need to demand that the monitoring of lights and marker buoys be rigorous and efficient. I should like to ask the Minister, for answer if not this evening, certainly in the near future, which state agency is responsible for that inspection work and whether it has the resources to perform the work effectively? Have maps been produced recently by the Ministry of Agriculture, fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland which denote carefully the marine fish farms?
I have to express a word of criticism regarding those somewhat shadowy figures, the eight or nine Crown Estate Commissioners. They have astoundingly wide powers over fish farming. They alone control access to much of the foreshore and to all of the seabed out to territorial limits. For example, fish farmers who wish to anchor sea cages off the shore must obtain permission from the commissioners. There is widespread concern, especially in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, over the commissioners' apparent reluctance sensibly and realistically to consult local authorities and communities on the development of land and seabed under Crown Estate ownership. The present system is not good enough for these powerful men, the commissoners, are too shadowy. I do not believe that they are best equipped to act as planning authorities or arbitrators when there are problems and conflicts over coastal amenities or the maritime environment. Perhaps the time is drawing near when we seek the amendment of the Crown Estate Act 1961.
These statutory instruments must be examined in respect of their expected and unexpected consequences, and that is the argument that I have advanced. I welcome the instruments, but I have serious reservations.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: It is with sadness that I report that this day we have had to bury in my constituency a "boy ashore". I refer to Mr. James Read, a fisherman who was killed in the hurricane last week. I am sure that the House will join me in sending to his faily its condolences at this difficult time. A man ashore died and the entire fleet had to remain ashore while a force 12-plus gale was blowing. I am sure that all East Sussex Members recognised the circumstances when they heard that the Newhaven lifeboat had set sail to rescue the crew of a French trawler during the gale.
I hope that the House will approve the two fishing vessels schemes. The European Community conservation regime has helped fishermen all along the south coast and brought more men into the fishing fleet. We have a growing and prosperous fleet and we have a good and sound programme of conservation. Young men are coming forward and they are welcome in an increasingly prosperous industry.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to the Falklands, but sad that it has taken so long to get to grips with this great opportunity. It is regrettable that the Foreign Office took so long to understand that which was available to us not so far away from the Falkland doorstep.
The measures before us require an investment of more than £32,000, but who will make the accompanying judgments, and what will be the effect of the other conditions that are involved? I should like to know more about the time that will be taken to agree that grants should be available.
It continues to be thought that those in Scotland and Northern Ireland are at a greater disadvantage than others elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Those in Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive grants of 40 per cent., while those elsewhere will receive grants of 25 per cent. We in the south-east have pockets of high unemployment, such as that in Hastings and Rye, of 12 to 14 per cent. Why should we be considered to be less disadvantaged than others elsewhere in the United Kingdom? There is stupidity in the continuing desire to perpetuate an assistance policy that bears no relation to the reality of unemployment and employment opportunities in various areas.
I am pleased that grants are available. I declare an interest, in that I have a boat, which I hope will not need rebuilding for some time. Mr. Phillip in Rye will be delighted to hear his name mentioned in the House, but he is the last person serving the Hastings and Rye area who can build the ships that we need to go to sea. Such people must not be disadvantaged simply because of where they live and a decision made far off in Brussels.
The available science and technology to establish where fish are is not up to scratch and would not be accepted elsewhere. There is no sensible sample and analysis system to determine what is going on. Dover sole and plaice come from Hastings and Rye, not Dover, and it is desperately disappointing that the Government have allowed shingle dredging off the south coast where we believe plaice and sole spawn. We do not have the analysis necessary to establish whether they spawn there, and it is silly to make

rapid judgments without the necessary scientific data, but we must judge whether it is better to have the shingle or the fish.
The Government's fishery advisers maintain that it is no easy matter to determine the problems, but I should like to know what the Government are prepared to do to preserve an industry which is now so vigorous.

Mr. James Wallace: We, too, pay tribute to the constituent of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) who died in the gales and extend our sympathy to his family. It is ironic that an onshore fisherman was killed, as those of us who represent fishing constituencies know about the hazards that those who go to sea face regularly.
The schemes under debate have been given a general, although tempered, welcome. The Government are no longer to continue with the decommissioning grants, some 225 of which were awarded. I wonder whether that is fewer than was expected. When restrictive licensing of pressure stocks was introduced, many people who sought a licence bought old vessels of low catching capacity for the equivalent of the decommissioning grant and used the licence on a much more modern vessel of much greater catching capacity. Interaction between decommissioning grant and the restrictive system of licensing may well have served to increase the fleet's catching capacity. Did the Government expect greater take-up of the grant? Perhaps the Minister can explain the decision to discontinue it.
As to the rate of grant, it is undoubted that, where some areas are to be preferred to others, grievances will be expressed in areas which do not qualify for higher grant. I am exceedingly grateful that my constituency is designated as part of the west of Scotland for this purpose. We shall go along with that if it means that we shall obtain an additional rate of grant.
The fact that the whole of the east coast of Britain has been excluded should not blind us to the fact that the prosperity and health of the fishing industry differs in various parts of the east coast. Undoubtedly, there has been improvement, and the Minister said at Question Time last week that he had been to Peterhead, so he will know that the industry there has, in recent months, been relatively prosperous. The same could not be said of a place such as Amble, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). Obviously, there are pockets where an additional rate of grant would have been most welcome. We hope that the provision is not set in stone for all time, and that, if possible, other means of assistance to these hard pressed areas might be forthcoming.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a further problem of the grant system at present is that it has prevented the smallest yards — those that can only assemble one boat at a time—from laying up a second boat after one is finished before a new order comes in if they are to get a grant for it. That has meant that, on more than one occasion, when they have not had replacement orders to take on after their current work, they have been forced to lay off their work force and lose their skilled people.
I can think of an example in Mevagissey in which the boatbuilder, despite having a high reputation. has a gap in his order hook and may well therefore lose the skilled men who allow him to continue the business.

Mr. Wallace: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. These grant condtions are often complex and the rules are strictly enforced. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will not be lost on the Minister.
A further point about the differentiation of grants is that there is a lower rate of grant for larger vessels in sensitive areas than elsewhere. We are, of course, receiving a larger rate of grant from the European Community. However, it has been said that, whereas the grant that comes from our own Sea Fish Industry Authority tends to be paid promptly, the grant from the European Community is often long delayed. Thus, some of the advantage of a higher rate of grant is diminished by the fact that interest payments must be paid over a longer period of time. I would appreciate it if the Minister would take that into account and see whether the process could be speeded up.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it was sensible, in so far as we could, to help the smaller boats especially, because they were the ones directly affected by the economic circumstances of the areas concerned. There is a real problem for large boats that come from areas that may be disadvantaged themselves, but the boat may be a profitable one competing with areas that are equally disadvantaged. So we felt that we should help the smaller boats as far as we could — boats from smaller communities in which the economic reasons for this differentiation were obvious. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that was the right balance to strike. It was a difficult decision to make, but it seemed important for an area such as the hon. Gentleman's own.

Mr. Wallace: I was certainly not trying to dispute that point. I accept that there was a difficult judgment to make and a balance to strike. The fact that there has not been a great outcry from the industry suggests that the balance cannot be far from right — although it has not satisfied everyone. With regard to delayed payments, and the interest payments that accrue, the advantage of the higher rate of European grant is not as great as would appear to judge from the cold figures. Whilst we have these higher rates of grant, we shall increasingly find, now and in the coming months, a level of frustration among applicants, as the number of applications will clearly outstrip the amount of money that is available for new boat construction. When the new measures were first announced, the spokesman for the Ministry said that he did not anticipate any shortage of cash; however, as the House will remember, the Prime Minister replied to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) as follows:
there is an unprecedented demand for grants, and we have had to have a system of priorities."—[Official Report, 22 October 1987; Vol. 120, c. 920.]
I now turn to the priorities that have been put in place. I doubt whether anyone would object to the fact that, in cases where someone's boat has been wrecked or lost, that should be the top priority. Priority has also been given to boats over the age of 15 years, especially when there has been a withdrawal from the fleet. The third priority relates to skippers under the age of 40 who have been putting up a substantial and specified part of the capital for the new boat.
For many younger skippers and partnerships an increasing number of financial re-arrangements have been

made so that the skipper has the required percentage. From talking to officials in the Sea Fish Industry Authority I understand that this priority is coming under scrutiny. It would be regrettable if this disappeared without any provision being made to encourage and facilitate younger men who along with their partners want to buy their own vessel. It would be regrettable if a financial barrier were placed in the way of younger men who want to come into fishing, and I should be grateful to the Minister if he could tell us whether this priority will stay in place. If it has to go or be revised, perhaps he can tell us if there will be some means of encouraging younger men who want to skipper their own vessels.
It is fair to say that the system used for the payment of grants and the grant level are not necessarily the best means of trying to restructure the fleet. A vessel over the age of 15 years that has been withdrawn will undoubtedly be replaced by a vessel of a much greater catching capacity. It is clear that the licensing system should take account of the need to keep the size of the fleet under control. It would be a matter for regret if the effective catching capacity were to be controlled by a limit on the amount of cash made available.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much will be made available next year. It is £7·5 million this year. If he could tell us that that amount will be increased next year, it might give some ray of hope to those who are waiting. The grants for new build should help to modernise the fleet and should help new young people coming into the industry.
I shall now speak about fish farming. The measure before us is welcome. As the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said, this industry has taken off in a big way in Scotland and has more potential to fulfil, particularly as we look to other possible species in farming, such as halibut and turbot. The importance of marketing will also increase and we need to make sure that our fish farmers will not be undercut by the dumping in our market of farmed products from countries such as Norway.
I endorse what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow said about the Crown Estate Commissioners. Over many centuries the Highlands and Islands of Scotland suffered from the problem of absentee landlords. The feeling there is that we have the latest instalment in that long-running saga. There is a feeling in many areas of insensitivity and lack of consultation with local authorities. In my constituency there is considerable antagonism about the level of rents. It is felt that the lower rental rates which were in force for some to time to take account of the fact that the industry was developing have not been extended to parts of Scotland, such as the Western Isles and my constituency, where the development of the industry is still much more recent than in other parts of Scotland.
Above all, the rents must take account of the fact that in the remoter island areas the transport costs, not only for exporting the finished products but for bringing in the necessary materials and foodstuffs, place an exceptional additional burden on those engaged in fish farming. The Crown Estate Commissioners have not taken that into account nearly enough in setting the level of rent. Obviously that is outwith the scope of this debate and the Minister can do nothing about it by way of these measures. We welcome what has been given, but it would be a


tragedy if much of what has been given by the Government under this measure were taken away by the Crown Estate Commissioners in ever increasing levels of rent.

Mr. David Harris: I say at the outset that I believe that all hon. Members welcome these schemes and that what I am about to say in no way diminishes my support for them. The Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 once again perpetuates an injustice against many fishermen, certainly in England and certainly the fishermen I represent. I could not help smiling wryly when the debate began with an outburst of indignation from some Scottish Opposition Members who, for the first time, although on fish farming, realised that their constituents were going to suffer in precisely the same way as my constituents who are fishermen, and fishermen in most parts of England, have suffered over the years. One only has to look at this scheme to see the measure of that injustice. For vessels under 24 m the maximum possible rate of grant in the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be 65 per cent. For all other regions it will be 50 per cent. —a differential or bonus of 15 per cent. to Scottish fishermen. For vessels over 24 m and up to 33 m, for the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland the maximum rate of grant will be 55 per cent. For other regions it will be 50 per cent., a smaller differential, but nevertheless a differential.

Mr. Salmond: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. The point that I made in the intervention earlier was that 10 years ago one might have believed that the European Commission was willing to designate the whole of Scotland as a priority area, but at present my constituency and other constituencies on the east coast of Scotland are not so designated. I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Is he saying that the European Commission is somehow biased towards Scotland and against his constituency in England?

Mr. Harris: If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a minute, I will come to that point. The genesis of this injustice lies in The Hague agreement of 1976. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he was Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, was the Minister at the Hague meeting that drew up this agreement to give extra aid to preferential areas which were perceived by the Commission to have a vital dependence on fishing. What was never said from that day to this was how on earth those areas were chosen or on what criteria.
With great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it is not good enough for him to say that this was all to do with the Commission. If the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) looked at Hansard of 2 November 1976, column 1214, he would see that my predecessor, Mr. John Nott, as he was then, challenged the right hon. Member for Devonport, who was making a statement about the conclusion of the meeting of the Fisheries Council in The Hague, and asked him what the consequence of this was for regions that did not have that preferential treatment, and on what basis were those regions with the preferential treatment chosen. The right hon. Member for Devonport shuffled it all off on to the Commission. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan will have to look at column 1215 for that.
The basis of the rationale, or the criteria, for the preferential treatment for, in those days, the whole of Scotland—it excluded most of England—has never been explained. As the Minister said, the Hague agreement referred to northern parts of Britain, not actually to Scotland. But what was the basis for it? Can the Minister explain why the fishermen who are the constituents of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should get 15 per cent. more grant than fishermen from the other end of the country? I defy my right hon. Friend to give a logical reason for it. Is it on the basis of unemployment? If it is, I can tell him that west Cornwall has far higher unemployment. Is it based on dependence on fisheries? Both communities depend very much on fishing, and many parts of my constituency are far more dependent on fishing than is most of Scotland. There is no rational basis for this, except one: the crude political decision of the time. If my right hon. Friend knows of a better reason, I hope that he will enlighten me.
The system is unjust, and not only in relation to this matter. It goes right the way through fishing policy. It affected limits; in my part of the country we have six-mile limits, whereas in Scotland there are 12-mile limits. It also affects the allocation of grants. I firmly believe that many Scottish fishermen stand a much better chance of getting a grant in the first place than do fishermen from other areas. In addition, of course, they get higher grants. I say good luck to them, but I believe that the system is crazy and I propose a simple answer which I think will satisfy the whole House. Let us remove the differentials and the bonus and let all our fishermen have exactly the same grant. I will maintain that that is the correct position until someone tells the House and, more importantly, the fishermen of Cornwall, why they get a lower grant than do the fishermen in parts of Scotland.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: The issue here is not only the differential but the fact that so much of the money has gone to Scotland in any case. If the measure does anything, I hope that it will work better for the English industry than did the previous measure. About three quarters of the money must have gone to Scotland. Although no one begrudges the modernisation of the industry in Scotland there are aging vessels in England and there is a greater need now for modernising the English industry. That is especially so in Grimsby, where many of our vessels are 25-year-old or 35-year-old seine netter wooden vessels, which need modernisation and replacement. The base of the industry in Grimsby must be broadened. We need vessels to replace the British United Trawlers CAT class vessels which were decommissioned two years ago, which had the all-year-round, all-round Britain catching capacity that is necessary to keep the port going throughout the winter. For that, we need improved finances.
The crucial aspect of this measure is how much money is made available to provide the grants. It appears that the sums provided will be inadequate to cope with the need for modernisation and replacement. Because of that inadequacy, an order of priorities has been established. Clearly, we need priorities, but many deserving cases do not fit within those priorities.
In Grimsby, skipper John Hancock has a valid case for a new vessel, but the grant has been tied to the decommissioning of his old vessel. Because he will not do


that, he cannot get a grant. There must be such rationing if the sums provided are as inadequate as they are. They should be increased substantially. John Hancock is entitled to a new vessel and should have priority. It would be to his benefit and to the benefit of Grimsby generally.
Grants alone are not enough to help with the process of modernisation. They must be supplemented by loans. At the current rate of interest, it is difficult to raise the money to buy fishing vessels, which are extremely expensive these days. Our competitors in Belgium, Holland and France are provided with subsidised loans to build or replace fishing vessels. That should happen here if we are to help people to modernise the industry in the way that it needs.
Even big firms have not been able to justify the commercial decision, at current rates of interest, to provide new vessels for the industry with the result that there has been a substantial shrinkage in Grimsby and that has meant that vessels have not been replaced. Those are the main points. The measures are unexceptionable, and necessary. The problem, and the test of the Government's good will, is the provision of the funds on the necessary scale to allow the industry to modernise — certainly in Grimsby—in the way that it must.

Mr. Robert Key: Notwithstanding the existence of the River Avon Navigation Act, by which Salisbury was connected to the Solent, I want to concentrate on the fish farming scheme. The scheme gives enormous discretion to Ministers, who must decide whether something is desirable. It extends to agriculture and structural works in coastal areas and covers the breeding, rearing or cultivation of fish, and that includes shellfish and molluscs. That is very significant.
There are about 500 fish farms in this country. More than 20 are in my constituency, and the biggest river-based fish farm in Europe is in my constituency. There are many problems associated with fish farming. Many are concerned with water abstraction and discharge control. In some cases water authorities restrict the abstraction that they allow to about 40 per cent. of the flow of a river. In my constituency one fish farm takes 70 per cent. of the flow of the river and might increase that figure. Most fish farms are much smaller than that. They would take anything from 25 tonnes of fish a year, whereas the very big fish farms take about 1,000 tonnes a year, and that is big business. I am pleased that the Government are moving towards water abstraction licensing as well as discharge control.
Nearly all the river based sites for fish farming, particularly in the south of England are now used up. Does it make sense to produce grants for fish farms when there is considerable doubt about disease and environmental impact? My right hon. Friend the Minister may have no intention of giving grants to fish farms on rivers in the south of England, but may intend to concentrate on coastal sites. In that case, will he concentrate on salmon and possibly turbot, or will he concentrate on prawns, lobsters, freshwater crayfish and so on? We must pay more attention to fish farming, because it is such a big business.
One aspect that particularly worries me is disease control. It is all very well being delighted at the fact that this is the fastest growing growth area in the agriculture

industry, if not in the whole economy in Scotland, but disease control is a big problem. There has been a great deal of discussion and misapprehension about the use of antibiotics. When people talk about antibiotics in general in relation to fish farming, they are probably really talking about anti-microbial compounds, not just antibiotics. There has been a great deal of emotional discussion of those issues.
One of the things that concerns me most about disease control is that by unwittingly licensing many of the traditional low-cost compounds used in fish farming for disease control the Government or the European Community are mistakenly removing the professional discretion of vets. We must be very careful about that. Vets have a great input and their voices should be heard more than they are heard at present.
Another aspect of the burgeoning industry of fish farming that worries me is fish movement control — the movement of fry in particular. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister before I knew that we were to debate this subject today. He will recall that I wrote to him about the regional water authorities that used to have to licence the movement of fish in advance. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now does that licensing. In fact, it is retrospective. After one has done it, one has to write and say that one has done so, rather than get permission in the first place. That does not seem to be a frightfully sensible way of carrying out fish movement and disease control. I hope that my right hon. Friend will have a clear view on the national water authorities' role in fish farming and fish disease control.
There is no doubt that fish farming is generally misunderstood. There are about 500 fish farms and about 5 million anglers. Most of the time they are at loggerheads in southern England about the same stretches of water. Much blame is heaped on fish farmers, which may not be justified. I am delighted that there is a joint effort between my right hon. Friend's Ministry, the Freshwater Biological Association, the National Environment Research Council and, indeed, the Wessex water authority to study River Avon course fishing stocks and the reasons for their decline. The report will he published early next year.
This year the Select Committee on the Environment produced an enormous weight of evidence against fish farming, particularly with regard to environmental impact and pollution, with scarcely a peep out of the fish farming lobby to justify what it was doing in economic terms or, indeed, to answer the many questions that were quite rightly posed and to which there are answers.
We are faced with fish farming, which is big business and big money. It also has a big environmental impact. People are worried about it. Before dishing out too many grants to river-based fish farms, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best to make sure that we use this unique opportunity to get it right.

Mr. Calum A. Macdonald: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the statutory instruments in so far as they represent additional and much-needed investment in fishing and fish farming, but like other hon. Members I also find them deficient in that they do not go nearly far enough. Various major problems are unanswered. I appreciate that time for the debate is short, so I shall shortly focus on one statutory instrument, No. 1134 on fish farming. Before I do so, however, I should say


that statutory instrument No. 1135 refers to assistance to fishing vessels. I welcome the weighting of support for smaller vessels and also the European Commission's weighting for west coast vessels specifically. Before vessel owners can take advantage of the weighting, they need to get a grant in the first place. Skippers in my constituency have found it difficult to get assistance from the EC through FEOGA grants. One skipper has been turned down twice, despite the fact that, outwardly, everything about his application seemed to merit an award from the European Commission. Part of the problem is that it is difficult to get from the European Commission some explanation of why an application is turned down — in fact, it gives no explanation whatsoever. Therefore, it is difficult for a skipper to know what to do in reprocessing his application for a more favourable verdict. I ask the Minister to look into the matter and to try to persuade the European Commission to be more open in the reasons behind its verdicts.
It has been said that fish farming is a booming industry, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. It has created over 1,000 primary jobs. Added to that, other jobs have been created downstream in processing industries and fish farm services. In 1986, the value of salmon farm production was equivalent to the entire west coast commercial fish landings, which gives some idea of the importance of this new industry to the west coast.
This year the cash value of salmon production is expected to be about £60 million and next year £100 million—equivalent to almost half the total value of the Scottish commercial fish landings. The developments in shellfish farming and the progress in connection with species such as halibut, make for an exciting new growth area. A major new economic force is emerging in the Highlands and Islands.
The figures of 1,000 jobs and £100 million cash value are significant anywhere in Scotland, but they are particularly significant in remote peripheral areas such as the Highlands and Islands, traditionally a fragile community with an underdeveloped economy. Any Government assistance to maintain progress is welcome. I welcome the order, but its good intentions are undermined by the activities of the Crown Estate Commissioners who propose to raise rents to £36 per tonne for fish farms in my constituency and to £40 per tonne for fish farms on the mainland.
The average 1988 production of 25,000 tonnes means that receipts to the crown Estate Commissioners will he between £900,000 and £1 million from the Highlands and Islands alone.
Under pressure, the Crown Estate Commissioners have agreed to plough back some receipts into the fish industry, but so far they have agreed to put back only about £100,000. Meanwhile it is spending about £4·3 million on the maintainence, improvement and repairs of Windsor park and other properties in London. That is not good enough. These feelings were made clear in my constituency recently by those patronisingly referred to by the commissioners as tenants.
The fish farmers in my constituency, and in the Highlands and Islands generally, are not tenants and do not think of themselves sa such. They are not servants but adventurous and hardworking entrepreneurs. They already pay the full range of taxes that businesses are expected to pay and yet they are also taxed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The difference between the receipts

which the commissioners take from them and the investment that they put hack in constitutes the profits which are being ploughed back into London properties.
I cannot see the justification for that. It is beyond the understanding of fish farmers in the Highlands and Islands. Can the Ministry justify fish farmers paying rents in excess of investment? Until that injustice is remedied, the statutory instruments will not do much good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has already said that the problem calls into question the status of the Crown Estate as landlord of the fish farms in the Highlands and Islands. The role of the Crown Estate should be examined. The Government may not be willing to be so radical, but they should at least agree that the £1 million that the Crown Estate intends to extract from fish farms in the Highlands and Islands ought to be ploughed back into fish farming in that area. There is no justification for it to go anywhere else. Investment is needed in research, training and infrastructure works such as piers and roads. Unless that money is ploughed back, the statutory instruments will not do much good.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am pleased to welcome the instruments. My constituency has fishing interests in trawlers and a number of fish farms. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited Milford Haven shortly after the general election and saw the increased number of trawlers plying from that port in the Celtic sea and further out.
The trawler owners' association — the indigenous owners in Milford Haven — has recently increased the number of working trawlers to seven, and there is a possibility of two more. That is especially important in a town which has 30 per cent. unemployment.
Recent developments by Seacon, which has just taken control of the Milford Haven Dock Company, will lead to the refurbishment of the ice-making factory at the docks, and that will also help the fishing industry.
I should like my right hon. Friend to look again at a matter that the Ministry has considered in the past 18 months. There is worry about the flags of convenience that are used by Spanish ships in Milford Haven. The common fisheries policy in January 1985 virtually excluded Spanish ships from their traditional grounds, but after Spain's accession to the EC in January 1986 a number of licences were granted. However, although some ships register in the United Kingdom and have United Kingdom captains, the number of crew who are British or nationals of other EC states is nowhere near the 75 per cent. that the law requires. The limits are still being flouted.
Fish farming in my constituency is centred on the river Cleddau, and I recently visited a number of farms. There are still pollution problems and I should like to know whether statutory instrument No. 1134 will cover assistance to deal with that problem.

Mr. Gummer: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) for reminding the House of the considerable danger that is part of the fishing industry. I associate the Government with his remarks about the late Mr. Read.
The problem raised on both sides of the House is the difficulty of being fair between the various parts of the industry. I remind hon. Members that many parts of the country where there is high unemployment may, at the same time, have very profitable fishing industries. The connection is not always easy to draw. A hinterland may have high unemployment, but a profitable fishing industry; or there may be problems in both respects. None of us find it easy to decide where extra help should go.
I hope that the debate has convinced the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that he was wholly wrong to attack me for being anti-Scots, for it has suggested to my English friends that I have done too well by the Scots. But it is probably a good idea to be attacked by both sides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take what I have said in the spirit in which it was meant. We find it extremely difficult to draw the distinctions, and I believe that we must accept that the Commission has tried to give special help to parts of the country with special difficulties. However, I hope that no one will go away with the idea that this is anything but a very blunt instrument, and I have taken very seriously what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) spoke of his sadness about the decommissioning grants. I merely say to him that, with the amount of money available and the arrangements that had been made, it seemed better to put the money into the restructuring of the fleet through the replacement of older boats, particularly those whose age now gives cause for real alarm on safety grounds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also agree that we cannot ask people to receive grants for new boats when we also allow them to keep old boats.
I must tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) that we have to use the grants in such a way as not to increase the capacity to catch when there is no increase in the opportunity to do so. The gentleman to whom he referred must accept that the purpose of the grants is to modernise the fleet, but not to expand it beyond the opportunities that are there for it. Otherwise, those who are already in the business will have every right to complain about the use of Government and European Community money. I do not think that that complaint was reasonable.
We examine the problems of fish farming extremely carefully. The European Community makes the decisions, but we have to see that the requests that reach Brussels are within the terms of the arrangements. We insist that there is a discharge consent from water authorities in England and Wales, river purification boards in Scotland and the Department of the Environment at the Northern Ireland Office, where necessary. We start from the assumption that we must ensure that the fish farms that ask for help are doing their business in a way that is environmentally acceptable.
I accept that there are different problems in different parts of the country. What obtains for rivers in the crowded south-east may not obtain for rivers in the rest of the country. The problems of marine fish farming are clearly different from those of river fish farming. We are considering the matter very carefully, and, as I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in recent correspondence, I am taking particular note of the issues that he has raised with me, in common with

neighbouring Members. I hope that we shall be able to satisfy him on those points, or else make changes that will in themselves satisfy him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye mentioned the fallibility of science, and in particular the problems of dredging. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food examined those matters very carefully. It was not done quickly, and it would be unfair to call it a rapid judgment. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but it took a long time: indeed, the industry complained that I took too long over it. I did so on purpose, because I wished to obtain the right answer. In order to protect the fishing interests our decision excludes dredgers from those areas to which they might most want to go. That shows the high priority we give to the fishing interests. It would be unfair to suggest that the Government have not taken into account the evidence that was given to us. However, we have to take into account the best evidence that is available. One may say that science is fallible, but surely one does not therefore say that we ought to accept any view rather than the scientific view.
The same problem has arisen over the total allowable catch and estimating future fish stocks. We are not always right, but it is better to take the best evidence that is available than to disregard it and to say that it is so often wrong that we shall not take it seriously.
I understand my hon. Friend's point about Dover sole being largely caught in Hastings and Rye, but I hope that he will accept that fish do not belong to any place or to anyone. They move very rapidly, and we have to try to ensure that they are shared out fairly.
As for the points put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), we are taking action on flags of convenience. I hope that very soon he will see the alterations in our arrangements that will ensure that those ships which claim to be British ships are in fact British ships and that therefore those ships that take fish under British quotas are properly taking them. I understand the very considerable anger that is felt when it is found that fish that have been fairly shared out among members of the European Community are taken by other than British nationals.
I shall look into the points that have been made by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) about the Crown Estate. As I am not directly responsible for it, he will not expect me to answer him directly now, but I shall take his points into account. I shall continue to discuss with the Commission the FEOGA grants and the arrangements to which he rightly drew attention—as did other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The present system gives rise to considerable difficulties. We have been seeking to encourage a new system that we believe would be better, but so far without success.
As for the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, I believe that it is better to try to share the £50 million than—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,


That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1135), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.

SEA FISHERIES

Resolved,
That the Fishing Vessels (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1136), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

FISHERIES

Resolved,
That the Fish Farming (Financial Assistance) Scheme 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 1134), dated 1st July 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Truro and St. Austell

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems caused by the removal of assisted area status from the travel-to-work areas of Truro and St. Austell.
I thank the Minister for staying so late to respond to this Adjournment debate. It is, however, an important matter, not only for my own constituents in Truro and St. Austell, but for many throughout Cornwall, particularly in the far west of the county, for, above all, Cornwall's problems need to be seen and tackled together. Because we in Truro and St. Austell are set in the middle of the country our position is unique, as I shall explain, but Launceston also suffers —and as a result of our suffering the whole of Cornwall is penalised.
The Minister may have some knowledge of our problems, having responded in the past to debates on the subject of regional development. However, familiarity will not, I trust, have bred contempt, and I have already let the Minister know that I seek some response to specific difficulties and suggestions, in addition to the general debate about the current definitions of travel-to-work areas in Cornwall.
Above all, the feeling throughout my constituency and Cornwall is that for the sake of bureaucratic simplicity local realities have been ignored — or perhaps there is simply no real understanding of the situation.
If the whole county had assisted area status it would stop this pointless softshoe shuffle by Cornish companies shifting across boundaries in search of the cash to survive or grow. Instead, it would give a single package to present to the outside world, which could be marketed and developed as a whole and which would work as a whole.
Nor is assisted area status to be taken in isolation. It is bound up with development in the county, and while to many of us it is a key issue, the Minister could at least mitigate its effects by acknowledging them and acting to avert the worst anomalies and difficulties. That is why I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to ask the Minister five related questions. I hope that the people of Cornwall will receive the constructive response that they deserve.
My first request is that the grants associated with assisted area status should be an extra sweetener to help to attract business from outside the county. My county is England's poorest, and that is why so much of it attracts special assistance. But why make it a mint with a hole? Truro and St. Austell are the only travel-to-work areas in England that are completely surrounded by assisted areas. That hole has cut off further development potential, not just for my constituency but for Cornwall as a whole. Surely the Government can see that that decision lacked logic. How can we tell people from Helston and Caniborne that their only means of communication with the rest of England is through an area where roads, water works and sewerage systems do not have the same financial assistance as their own? So we are left behind, always more expensive to tackle, so all too often put off to do another day.
It is a flaw that the Government have studiously avoided elsewhere. What about the Birmingham travel-to-work area? It is one vast area one could say the size of an


entire county. This travel-to-work area has assisted area status, but if one breaks down the unemployment figures there one finds areas with 8·5 per cent. unemployment in Elmdon or 5·0 per cent. in Knowle. But there are not holes in Birmingham's assisted area status map. Just as I would not be able to see the logic in leaving out parts of Birmingham, I cannot see the logic of doing so in Cornwall.
I have heard it said that it was precisely because Birmingham won this concession that areas like my own missed out. With assisted area status restricted to a defined percentage of the country, when the leafy suburbs of Birmingham were helped, civil servants were dispatched with scissors and tape to cut out other areas all over the country to make the percentages add up. If that is true, my part of Cornwall was one of the sacrifices.
Local industry is united in its belief that Truro and St. Austell offer the rest of the county an opportunity to draw in industry from outside. English China Clays, which is the chief employer in St. Austell, acknowledges the need for St. Austell to be given the opportunity to diversify, but it knows that this cannot be done without assisted area status. Truro and St. Austell could provide the kind of facilities and attraction to make Cornwall marketable, but only with the right support.
My predecessor, David Penhaligon, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) were among those who lobbied to put an industrial site called United Downs into the assisted area of Redruth. It was designed as the showpiece estate for Cornwall to attract business and jobs to service a wide area of west Cornwall. Instead, the stupidity of bureauracy ruled again, and United Downs is part of the Truro travel-to-work area, despite being closer to Redruth. That project was originally backed financially by this Government, but strangled even as it was being built in 1984, all thanks to a pen mark on a map rather than the logic of local knowledge.
Furniss Biscuits is a company with a long history that is based in Truro, but it is now being forced to move unnecessarily into Redruth if it is to receive the grants essential for its growth. It is a firm that provides bread-winning jobs for families in my constituency, not the part-time low-paid work that hides the real poverty of many in Cornwall from the official statistics. Do the Government seriously believe that by forcing a local manufacturer to pay the costs of moving simply to keep in business it will help the local economy?
My second request gives the Minister an opportunity to give some specific constructive assistance. Our local authorities are not sitting around waiting for money to be restored; instead, they have produced a draft application to the national programme for community interest, which will be judged by the European Commission later this year. What they need from the Government is support for their draft and a commitment to push the application through. It is a chance to bring some much needed money to help with the infrastructure of Cornwall, and an opportunity to get that money from Europe. It will give continuity and consistency to Cornwall's development.
I seek a particular commitment from the Minister that will allow funding to areas and projects serving those with assisted area status, such as the link between the A30 and Falmouth. This would be a step towards acknowledging

the fact that travel-to-work areas are not the be all and end all of the needs of a community, and would be a real gesture of support for our needs.
I should like to make a special plea that the national programme of community interest does not go the way of the article 15 application, for the development of our tourism, and disappear into the dark depths of the Treasury, losing all sight of deadlines from one year to the next, on the flimsy excuse of concern about local government expenditure. My county is well known for keeping within its means. It is now applying to Europe, but still the Government manage to block any move forward.
The Government can show signs of encouragement by helping our county with this application. However, until we have an improvement in roads through Truro and St. Austell the whole of south Cornwall will suffer. Without decent transport, communications, amenities and industrial estates throughout Cornwall, too much of Cornwall will stagnate in isolation. Those projects will develop only if controls on investment are relaxed. We are not a high spending area; our local authorities have historically been cautious in their spending. Greater freedom would not incur wild extravagance, but more houses and less homelessness, more jobs, and less joblessness. We cannot at present even get help to build a decent city hall in our City of Truro.
Today we saw the first planes flying in from Portsmouth to the new STOL port in the City of London. All Cornwall is keen to realise its potential at RAF St. Mawgan for increased freight transportation and the expansion of operations there by Bryman Airways. It is something that would be welcomed by everyone. Local industries are keen to have customs facilities there, but it is not covered by assisted area status and will, therefore, receive little support. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of financial support for such development. I am sure that that would be a sign of support and encouragement to industries interested in moving into the county.
My third request is for increased funding for English Estates. I am told that English Estates finds it easier to let its units in Cornwall than in any other county in England—not surprising, perhaps, since it is virtually alone in providing such facilities. At this moment in the whole of the county of Cornwall there is only one site of 10,000 sq ft available. is that any way to encourage industry to move to Cornwall when we have nothing to offer but the land and the sky? If the Minister can tell me of any manufacturers who can move to Cornwall and build their own sites, I will write to them tomorrow inviting them to our county. However, I do not believe that he can do so.
The Department of Trade and Industry this year gave English Estates £3 million for the entire south-west region to be spent only in assisted areas. Of that, £2·35 million went to Cornwall, the rest to Plymouth. Next year, of the £2·4 million to be given for the south-west region, only £400,000 will be spent in Cornwall. The result is that any momentum that has been built up in Cornwall will now be lost by a massive reduction in building of industrial sites in the area, despite the fact that there is proven demand. Again, Truro and St. Austell have been struck off the development map. We do not have any industrial units to offer, and English Estates is ruled out of investing with us. I believe that makes no sense for our county and it certainly does not make sense for Truro and St. Austell.
My fourth request is for an assurance that the Plymouth regional development office will not be relocated at Bristol. I, like the Minister, appreciate that rumours such as that are often unfounded, but I have no hesitation in giving the Government the opportunity to dispel those rumours and reassure local businesses and councillors.
My fifth and final request is for a statement on the recent rumours regarding the whole shake-up of regional development in this country. I hope that the Minister will use this request to quell any fears of industries thinking of investing in areas of regional development and assure them that they will continue to receive assistance.
While preparing for this debate I read through the various attempts by hon. Members and hon. Friends to draw the Government's attention to the acute need for a change in the definition of areas eligible for assistance. I have to say I was rather surprised by the similarity of ministerial responses to speeches on this issue, each lacking any helpful response. As a result, I contacted the Minister's office last Friday with an outline of my speech in the hope that tonight we would receive some specific replies. I did that because the people of Cornwall are tired of the usual ministerial responses. They are tired of trying to build up industry in the area only to be beaten back by the Government's regional policy. The Cornish people, Cornish industry and local government deserve a decent reply.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Butcher): I thank the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) for the courtesies that he has observed in signalling some of the questions that he wished to raise this evening. I shall do my best to deal with them in the terms in which he raised them. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the manner in which he has presented his case. Given the candour of his delivery, I am sure that he would expect me to respond in a similar manner. I shall try to respond with equal courtesy and candour.
The hon. Gentleman has assembled a collection of facts and figures in support of his case for Government action to help those parts of his constituency which do not benefit from assisted area status. In so doing he would have the House believe that the areas concerned are suffering from a level of disadvantage on a par with that found in some of our most deprived areas. When we examine the hard data we find that that is not so. While neither I nor he would wish to minimise the problem of unemployment, neither St. Austell nor Truro has anything like the rate of unemployment to be found in other parts of the country. Indeed, Truro, in particular, gives a clear impression of prosperity, benefiting from its role as the principal commercial centre of that part of Cornwall, and from the many thousands of visitors each year, generating economic activity on a scale which would be the envy of many other parts of Britain.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks belie the fact that in many ways the Government are doing a great deal to assist areas such as his. I shall come back to this in a moment. First, a few words about the question of assisted area status, which is at the heart of the hon. Member's remarks. He will know, of course, that several other issues follow from that of status.
The assisted areas map was re-drawn in November 1984, and I acknowledge that, as a result. the travel-to-

work areas of Truro and St. Austell lost their assisted area status. Quite simply, the two travel-to-work areas did not meet the criteria which were established for assisted area designation. Our objective in revising the assisted areas was to ensure that the areas of greatest need received assistance. With this in mind we looked at a variety of objective indicators. Apart from the immediate unemployment level we considered industrial and occupational structure, for example, with a view to determining the areas where dependence on declining traditional industries was the greatest problem. Levels of long-term unemployment were, of course, a key consideration, and distance from main markets was taken into account. Having considered these factors we could not, in the circumstances, justify including Truro and St. Austell, and as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, this meant that these areas were no longer eligible for other forms of assistance from for example, the European regional development fund.
I must make it plain that my Department has no plans at present to review the coverage of the assisted areas map. I sympathise with those areas which lost assisted area status in 1984, but piecemeal changes in respect of individual travel-to-work areas would undermine the stability in the map needed for firms to be able to make sensible investment decisions. I recognise that the relative positions of travel-to-work areas have changed since the 1984 review but, based on the most recent figures — for September 1987 — the Truro TTWA's unemployment rate, 9·6 per cent. is below the average for Great Britain at 11·3 per cent., and well below the average for intermediate areas at 14·1 per cent. St. Austell's rate of 13·2 per cent., which is higher than Truro's, is nevertheless also below the intermediate area average. Indeed the unemployment rates of both TTWAs are lower than they were when the assisted areas map was altered in November 1984. Truro's rate, in particular, has shown a marked decrease —from 12·2 per cent. in November 1984 to 9·6 per cent. in September 1987. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Birmingham. The people of Birmingham would be delighted if they could report similar figures.
Truro's claim to assisted area status on unemployment grounds can hardly be described as a strong one. As I am sure the hon. Member will acknowledge, there are many non-assisted areas which suffer from levels of unemployment considerably in excess of both Truro's and St. Austell's rates.
I have spoken at some length about the unemployment level because, although one has to bear in mind a number of criteria when considering status, prime among them—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees—must be the level of unemployment, which is a measure of social and economic activity, and the level of long-term unemployment. We try to regard them as the heart of the consideration.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say a few words about the way in which the Government's policies are having an impact on the unemployment and other problems he has described. We are creating an economic climate which is helping industry and commerce increase the national production of wealth. We are in our seventh year of growth at an annual rate approaching 3 per cent. Investment was at a record level in 1986.
Since 1980, the United Kingdom has grown faster, on average, than any other major European Community country and our productivity growth since 1979 has been


better than in any major industrial country — including Japan. In the three months to July 1987, output per head was nearly 48 per cent. up on the 1980 level. At the same time inflation has been substantially reduced — last year it was at its lowest level for almost 20 years.
We are encouraging the growth of the enterprise culture through lower taxes and the removal of price and dividend controls. We have introduced a whole range of measures to improve the responsiveness of commerce and industry through the restoration of incentives and the removal of unnecessary regulation and by enlarging the scope for enterprise through privatisation. We are emphasising to industry the importance of education and training. These are the steps we are taking to produce a climate which promotes enterprise and prosperity. They are at the heart of my Department's programmes.
There is a range of financial and practical support designed to help industry develop its competitive strengths and take advantage of the resulting opportunities. Support of this kind is available nationally and there is no reason why companies in the hon. Member's constituency should not benefit. There are subsidised consultancy services dealing with design, quality and marketing, which aim to introduce small and medium-sized firms to best practice and encourage them to make use of outside specialist advice by demonstrating the benefits of such advice. Information, advice and support for exporters is the business of the British Overseas Trade Board and the assistance given by the board is available throughout the country.
If the hon. Gentleman doubts the efficacy of such measures, I can only say that, during the past three or four years, I have seen many vivid examples of companies' prospects being changed by the implementation of the highest quality advice on design, quality and marketing. If it would be helpful, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to bring a delegation from his chamber of commerce to my Office to discuss these matters, which I have mentioned as being the main part of our agenda. I have found that through promotion of these measures, it is possible to help some regions and travel-to-work areas.
The success of the Government's policies in tackling unemployment is apparent in all regions of the country. Unemployment is now falling throughout Great Britain. In Truro and St. Austell, as elsewhere, people are benefiting from the wide range of employment, training and enterprise schemes run by the Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission. And there are local enterprise agencies in St. Austell and in Camborne, which covers the Truro area. I understand that last year the West Cornwall enterprise agency assisted in the start-up of 87 new businesses and that it carried out, on average, 65 business advice consultations each month. I believe it has also set up a loan fund aided by RTZ plc with the aim of supporting small business development by making loans available to new or existing businesses for either capital or working expenditure. I am sure that that will be most beneficial in helping to extend further the enterprise culture in the area.
As the hon. Member will acknowledge. a large part of his constituency has been classified as a rural development area. This is a designated priority area drawn up by the Development Commission on the basis of a number of criteria, including unemployment rates, age structures,

access to services and so on. The Development Commission concentrates its efforts in these rural development areas with the aim of increasing the number and range of job opportunities in the countryside. Its main programmes include the provision of small workshops and support for small businesses through advice, finance and training provided through its agency COSIRA. The commission also provides some support for rural services such as transport and housing and encourages community activity and self-help. In the Truro area the commission has funded 53 units, providing 73,000 sq ft of factory space, which accounts for nearly 300 job opportunities.
In the farming and rural enterprise package announced earlier this year, the Government provide an extra £1 million to enable the Development Commission to carry forward an innovative package of measures to stimulate new job opportunities in the countryside and encourage the development and diversification of the rural economy. One of these initiatives is the private sector partnership scheme, ACCORD — assistance for co-ordinated rural development — launched in June. Its aim is to attract £2·50 of private money for every £1 from the commission. I am sure the hon. Member will recognise the value of these developments.
The Government also recognise that the Truro and St. Austell areas, along with many other parts of Cornwall, contain significant amounts of derelict land. Because of this, both areas were designated, in 1985, as derelict land clearance areas, thus restoring the availability of derelict land grants at the highest rates. Reclamation schemes carried out by local authorities in such areas are eligible for derelict land grant at the rate of 100 per cent. of approved costs; 80 per cent. is payable for non-local authority schemes. These are the same rates that apply to schemes located in assisted areas.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the valuable reclamation work being done by Carrick and Restormel councils with the assistance of derelict land grant. Carrick council, in particular, has been active in reclaiming derelict land for a variety of uses, including industry and public open space and has a large scheme at Scorrier in the derelict land programme for the current financial year. There has been less activity in Restormel so far, but discussions are now under way about the possible use of derelict land grant to reclaim some former china clay workings in the St. Austell area. The Government are prepared to respond positively to the acknowledged problems associated with dereliction.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's willingness to look beyond the boundaries of his own constituency, and I make it clear that I am well aware of the value of English Estates' factory building in the areas surrounding his own constituency. While my Department has this year increased the allocation of funds to English Estates, there is a very high level of demand on its resources in assisted areas throughout the country as the economy continues to grow. It is, rightly, for the board of English Estates to determine how money allocated in the south-west is best spent on viable projects that will do most to stimulate new and increased business activity which alone can provide secure jobs. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) has kept a close eye on the role of English Estates.
During the current financial year, English Estates will spend about £2 million in west Cornwall. The Truro office will continue its efforts to identify suitable sites for future


development. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands and supports the need for new and better sites, for future development. I hope that he will join us in using his best endeavours with local authorities in his constituency to ensure that sufficient sites of the right quality will be available, and that they will show enlightened flexibility in their approach to planning consents, so that the needs of industry and commerce can be met.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's inclination to point up the disadvantages as he sees them of the absence of assisted area status, there has, nevertheless, been some very recent welcome news on the investment front. He will, for example, be delighted that Clear Water Fine Foods of Nova Scotia, the new owners of Channel Foods, is to invest £3 million in the Truro company and has plans to recruit an extra 40 workers following a move to new premises in the Newnham industrial estate. He will also be aware that St. Austell-based Partech Ltd., which employs 20 people in the manufacture of quality control monitoring equipment, has announced plans to double its work force within the next 18 months.
This sort of activity is evidence, if any were needed, of the confidence in the local area brought about by the Government's prudent management of the economy and the praiseworthy reactions of local employers in the hon.

Gentleman's area to the new breeze. The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the organisation of the south-west regional office. There are no plans to close the Plymouth office, but good management requires that the tasks and resources are continually monitored. The change was made to give the best possible service to those eligible for regional development grant while maintaining the quality of all the other services provided from Bristol.
It is no longer possible to justify a free-standing regional selective assistance unit in Plymouth. Bristol-based staff handle the full range of the Department's services and instruments across the whole region, with no complaints from the private sector.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the A30. Although it is a matter for the Department of Transport, I recognise that this road is a vital communications link for industry and commerce in Cornwall, which includes the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The Government have a list of impressive improvements made, under construction and planned. These together with the improvements in air communications, not least to the London docklands airport, are doing much to reduce the sense of distance of Cornwall from the main market places of Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Twelve o'clock.